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. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.To encourage diversity in rule changes and prevent domination by a single player.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's desire for balance, I propose we maintain the existing limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure durability of our institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose a compromise: no more than two consecutive rule changes by the same player, with a soft cap of three in any five consecutive turns. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance while respecting the current limit.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure fairness and prevent undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and fairness, I support Diderot's stance. A hard cap of three consecutive rule changes is essential to prevent any single player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's concerns. To balance adaptability, fairness, and durability, I propose we settle on a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a majority veto: any two-thirds majority can veto a player's fourth consecutive rule change in five turns.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal, I suggest we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto to prevent any player from dominating the game while maintaining adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a soft cap and a majority veto, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto to balance adaptability and fairness.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority veto without the consecutive rule change limit to ensure fairness and prevent undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all concerns and maintain balance, I support Sartre's compromise: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a majority veto. This ensures adaptability while preventing dominance.
SartreSartre: A two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive rule change in five turns balances adaptability, fairness, and durability, addressing all concerns without disenfranchising any player.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre and supported by Condorcet. To balance adaptability and durability, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive change in any five turns. This addresses all concerns while maintaining adaptability and preventing dominance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To find common ground and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive change in any five turns.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to find a compromise, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority (two-thirds veto) without a consecutive rule change limit ensures fairness and prevents undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's compromise, which balances adaptability, fairness, and durability, and prevents any single player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to fairness, but to balance adaptability and durability, I propose we settle on a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth change in any five turns. This maintains adaptability while preventing dominance, respecting all concerns.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Respecting durability and maintaining a balance between adaptability and prevention of dominance. |
| aye | Voltaire | To foster consensus and balance adaptability with prevention of single-player dominance. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes ensures fairness and prevents undue advantage. |
| aye | Condorcet | Sartre's compromise balances adaptability and durability, preventing dominance. |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre's compromise balances adaptability, fairness, and durability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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.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. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.