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 six consecutive turns.To balance adaptability and stability, extend the 'cooling off' period to six turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for increased flexibility, but I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns to balance adaptability and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the limit to five consecutive turns to allow for more strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to preserve fairness and prevent single-player dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's stance on maintaining the current limit. While flexibility is important, so is fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balance Voltaire and Montaigne are trying to strike, but I agree with Diderot and Condorcet. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around three consecutive turns, I propose we compromise at four to balance adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around four consecutive turns. To further balance adaptability and fairness, I propose we compromise at five consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's stance. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's stance. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect the consensus and find the best balance, I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around four consecutive turns, I propose a compromise of five consecutive turns with a soft cap, allowing for strategic planning while maintaining fairness.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to preserve fairness and balance in the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find a balance, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns. While flexibility is important, it should not come at the expense of fairness.
SartreSartre: While I understand Voltaire's proposal for increased flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Four consecutive turns strike the best balance between adaptability and fairness. |
| aye | Voltaire | To promote strategic planning and balance, a compromise at five consecutive turns seems reasonable. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and balance. |
| nay | Condorcet | Maintaining fairness and preventing single-player dominance. |
| aye | Sartre | Maintaining balance and preventing single-player dominance |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.