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 rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the limit to three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. However, I maintain that two changes is a sufficient limit to prevent dominance and encourage strategic play. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but increasing the limit to three allows for more strategic planning and adaptability. I propose we meet in the middle at two changes with a soft cap of four, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the desire for more adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to prevent single-player dominance. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes, with a soft cap of five, and a majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes, with a soft cap of four, and a two-thirds majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but a two-thirds majority veto might be too high, especially with the increased limit to three changes. I propose we maintain the majority veto at simple majority to strike a better balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but a two-thirds majority veto ensures that no single player can dominate, even with the increased limit. Let's maintain this balance and adopt Sartre's compromise.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a two-thirds majority veto, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority veto to ensure that all players have a meaningful voice in preventing single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the debate. To balance adaptability, prevention of single-player dominance, and maintaining a simple majority veto, I propose a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's latest compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four, and a simple majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance and ensuring all players have a meaningful voice. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes with a soft cap of three, reflecting a middle ground between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: To accommodate all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four and a simple majority veto. This balance encourages adaptability while preventing single-player dominance and ensuring all players have a meaningful voice. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive changes per player to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and prevent dominance, I support Sartre's compromise: a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four and a simple majority veto. PASS.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and find common ground, I propose we compromise at a limit of two changes with a soft cap of three, maintaining the simple majority veto to balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Preventing dominance is key, two changes is sufficient. |
| aye | Voltaire | This compromise balances adaptability, prevention of single-player dominance, and ensures all players have a meaningful voice. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive changes per player to prevent single-player domination. |
| aye | Condorcet | Balances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. |
| aye | Sartre | Promotes adaptability while maintaining balance and preventing single-player dominance. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.