The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold, maintaining a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes might be too restrictive, especially as we approach the target score. I suggest we settle on a four-player limit to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To accommodate both adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we meet in the middle with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for keeping the game dynamic and preventing stagnation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to prevent rapid, unilateral rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the various compromises proposed. However, I must insist on maintaining the current threshold of two-thirds majority to ensure a broad consensus before a rule change takes effect.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's stance on maintaining a simple majority, I believe a higher threshold is necessary to prevent impulsive rule changes, especially as we near the target score.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we compromise at a three-quarters majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to find middle ground, but I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote to keep the game flexible and responsive to changing strategies.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the desire to increase the threshold, but a three-quarters majority might be too high, especially as it may hinder quick adaptations to new strategies. I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's balanced proposal. To encourage strategic planning and prevent single-player domination, I propose a two-thirds majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Montaigne: I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal. To find the best compromise, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of a two-thirds majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes. This balance should encourage adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's compromise. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose a final compromise: a three-quarters majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes. This should balance adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and encourage strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote is vital for the game's fluidity and responsiveness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but a three-quarters majority may still be too high. To balance adaptability and consensus, I propose a final compromise: a two-thirds majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's commitment to simplicity, but I believe a higher threshold is necessary to maintain strategic depth and prevent impulsive changes. I propose we meet in the middle with a two-thirds majority and a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes, as it encourages planning without hindering adaptability.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | A higher threshold might hinder quick adaptations to new strategies. |
| aye | Voltaire | A higher threshold and limit encourage strategic planning and prevent single-player domination. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for the game's fluidity and responsiveness. |
| nay | Condorcet | A three-quarters majority may hinder quick adaptations to new strategies. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages strategic planning and prevents single-player domination |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.