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 three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.To balance adaptability, stability, and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority. A three-quarters majority might hinder the adaptability we need in Nomic.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for adaptability. To balance this with the need for consensus, I propose we meet at a three-fifths majority with a soft cap of three turns. This allows for necessary changes while preventing single-player dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find a balance, I maintain my stance: a simple majority with a hard cap of two turns is essential for maintaining adaptability and preventing stagnation in our Nomic game.
CondorcetCondorcet: 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 two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This should provide the necessary adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating the rule changes. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and compromises proposed. To foster consensus and maintain adaptability, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise: a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This balances adaptability and prevents single-player dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a soft cap to allow for necessary rule changes even after a player has reached their limit.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus building around a two-thirds majority, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise with a soft cap of three consecutive turns adopted per player to balance adaptability and prevent single-player dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of two turns to ensure all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game's evolution.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness and balance, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of two consecutive turns adopted per player. This maintains adaptability while ensuring all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining adaptability, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance while allowing for necessary rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a soft cap of two turns to maintain a fair opportunity for all players to influence the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for fairness. To balance this with the need for adaptability, I propose we meet at a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three turns, with an additional clause allowing for a majority veto to prevent any one player from repeatedly vetoing changes. This should provide the necessary adaptability while ensuring all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the majority veto proposal, I must insist on maintaining a hard cap of two turns to ensure all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game and prevent any one player from dominating rule changes, even with a majority veto in place.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations and the need for balance. To find common ground, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of two turns, allowing for necessary changes while ensuring all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game.
SartreSartre: To maintain balance and respect all players' voices, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of two turns. This allows for necessary changes while ensuring fairness for all players.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | A three-quarters majority might hinder the adaptability we need in Nomic. |
| aye | Voltaire | Promotes consensus and balances adaptability with prevention of single-player dominance. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining adaptability and preventing stagnation requires a lower majority and a hard cap of two turns. |
| nay | Condorcet | A three-quarters majority may hinder necessary adaptability in Nomic. |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre believes in fostering consensus and maintaining adaptability. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.