The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes per player may be adopted.To maintain balance and prevent single-player dominance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to increase the consecutive limit to three, but I suggest we compromise at two consecutive rule changes to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To find the best balance, I propose we settle for four consecutive rule changes with a soft cap, allowing for more adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure a balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. While a soft cap may encourage more changes, a hard limit prevents single-player dominance and ensures fairness for all. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced debate here. To foster consensus and prevent single-player dominance, I propose a middle ground: allow for three consecutive rule changes, but require a two-thirds majority for each change in that span. This encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise. To find the best balance, I suggest we settle for two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each, allowing for adaptability while maintaining stability and preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: To address all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: allow for three consecutive rule changes, with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balance encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support and preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Montaigne, Voltaire, and Sartre, but I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each. A soft cap or majority requirement for each change could lead to excessive changes or manipulation of the voting threshold. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the balance struck by Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each, as it best balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for a hard limit, but a two-thirds majority for each change ensures that no single player can dominate the rule-changing process. To accommodate this concern, let's compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each. This way, we maintain both adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I suggest we settle for two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each, as proposed earlier.
VoltaireVoltaire: To accommodate Diderot's concern and find common ground, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive rule changes, with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balance encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support and preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my stance: a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each ensures the greatest balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal of a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each. This maintains a fair balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's stance, but to prevent single-player domination and encourage adaptability, let's compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balances adaptability and fairness, as proven by the ongoing debate's consensus. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes prevents single-player domination and ensures fairness for all. |
| aye | Voltaire | Hard limit prevents single-player domination and ensures fairness for all. |
| aye | Diderot | A hard limit of three consecutive rule changes best balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination. |
| aye | Condorcet | Maintains balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. |
| nay | Sartre | To prevent single-player domination and encourage adaptability, I propose a compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority required for each. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.