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. If a player has two rule changes adopted in consecutive turns, they must wait two additional turns before proposing another rule change.To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's attempt to further discourage dominance, but I must insist on maintaining a soft cap rather than an additional wait time. Let us consider a three-quarters majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
VoltaireVoltaire: To balance all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Montaigne's compromise: a three-quarters majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed compromise, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all players' concerns, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation and the various compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player. This allows for adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's preference for a simple majority and a hard cap, but I believe a majority veto and a soft cap balance adaptability and fairness. Let us meet at a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive adopted rules per player to maintain adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a soft cap, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player to ensure fairness and prevent excessive dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's proposal, as it balances adaptability with prevention of single-player domination and respects the principles of simplicity and clarity in our rules. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to respect Diderot's concern for fairness and prevent excessive dominance, I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest compromise: a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, but maintain the majority veto to balance adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a hard cap, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive adopted rules per player to maintain adaptability while preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise reached, I must maintain my stance on a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player to ensure fairness and prevent excessive dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and respect Diderot's concerns, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. This compromise allows for adaptability while ensuring fairness. PASS
SartreSartre: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal with a modification: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, along with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. This balance adaptability with fairness and ensures no player can dominate the game. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Prefer a majority veto and a soft cap to prevent excessive dominance |
| aye | Voltaire | Respects consensus and balances adaptability with prevention of domination |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining a simple majority ensures fairness and prevents excessive dominance. |
| aye | Condorcet | To balance adaptability and prevent single-player domination while respecting all players' concerns. |
| aye | Sartre | Respects Sartre's compromise and balances adaptability with fairness. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.