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 two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.To maintain adaptability while preventing single-player dominance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to limit consecutive rule changes to two. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of three consecutive changes per player in any five turns, as previously discussed and agreed upon.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal, but I believe two consecutive rule changes per player is sufficient to maintain adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating the rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure sufficient flexibility for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal for limiting consecutive rule changes to two. While I appreciate the desire for more adaptability, maintaining a balance between adaptability and prevention of domination is crucial. Let's keep the limit at two consecutive changes to ensure fair play for all.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balanced proposals from everyone, but I must insist on a limit of three consecutive changes to ensure sufficient flexibility for all players, as suggested by Montaigne and Diderot. Two consecutive changes might hinder the exploratory nature of Nomic.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any five turns, as this balances adaptability and prevention of domination more effectively than a limit of three.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To find common ground and maintain balance, I propose we adopt a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any five turns, with a majority veto as previously agreed upon. This ensures both adaptability and prevention of domination.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a limit of three consecutive rule changes ensures a fair balance between adaptability and prevention of domination. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes per player in any five turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining the current limit, I believe a limit of two consecutive rule changes better balances adaptability and prevention of domination. To find a compromise, I propose a limit of two consecutive changes, with a simple majority veto to maintain fairness.
SartreSartre: I understand the concern for balance, but I propose a compromise: limit consecutive rule changes to two in any four turns instead of five. This maintains adaptability while preventing domination more effectively than a five-turn limit.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any four turns, with a two-thirds majority veto. This respects the ongoing negotiations and the need for fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's compromise of two consecutive changes in four turns. To further balance adaptability and fairness, I propose we keep the two-thirds majority veto as previously agreed upon, making the amendment: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any four consecutive turns."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes in any five turns to ensure adequate adaptability. I propose we keep the rule as it stands: "no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns".
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Sartre's compromises, but a limit of two consecutive changes in four turns seems too restrictive. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose a limit of two consecutive changes in five turns, without the majority veto to maintain simplicity and fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any four turns, with a simple majority veto to ensure fairness. This respects the concerns of all players and maintains the exploratory spirit of Nomic.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Respects ongoing negotiations and balances adaptability with prevention of domination. |
| aye | Voltaire | Maintains balance between adaptability and prevention of domination. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining a limit of three consecutive changes ensures adequate adaptability. |
| aye | Condorcet | Two consecutive changes strike a better balance between adaptability and prevention of domination. |
| aye | Sartre | Respects ongoing negotiations and balances adaptability with prevention of domination. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 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. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.