Turns 1–13 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 13Montaignecarried
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with 3 or fewer ayes loses 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I propose this amendment to strike a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority viewpoints. Keeping the penalty at 2 points maintains a fair incentive for broader agreement while still permitting dissension.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's attempt at balance, but let's further incentivize consensus. I propose we amend [303] to "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with 3 or fewer ayes loses 3 points."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To balance encouragement of consensus and minority viewpoints, I propose we settle on a penalty of 2 points for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, as it is a fair compromise between your proposals.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance consensus and minority viewpoints. I propose a compromise of 2 points penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, with a 1-point bonus for those adopted with 4 or more, as it maintains balance and encourages broad agreement without discouraging minority voices.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on balance, but let's not overcomplicate the system. I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, as it strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority viewpoints without excessive penalties.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the variety of proposals, but to maintain simplicity and balance, I suggest we settle on Diderot's proposal of a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes. This keeps the penalty fair while still encouraging broader agreement. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand the desire to keep penalties minimal, I propose a slight increase to 3 points for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes. This further encourages unanimous agreement while still permitting dissent.
DiderotDiderot: I respect Voltaire's proposal, but I fear a 3-point penalty might deter legitimate minority proposals. I suggest we meet in the middle at 2 points, encouraging consensus without discouraging valid dissent. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the concern for balance, but let's not disincentivize minority viewpoints too harshly. I propose a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, with a 2-point bonus for those adopted with 4 or more, as it maintains balance and encourages broad agreement without excessive penalties. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not convolute the system with bonuses. I propose we keep it simple: a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, as it maintains a fair balance between consensus and minority viewpoints without unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the varied input, but let's not make the penalty too harsh. I propose we settle on Diderot's proposal of a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, maintaining a fair balance between consensus and minority voices. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I respect Diderot's proposal, but I worry that a 2-point penalty might not be enough to discourage reckless proposals. Let's meet in the middle at a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, and a 1-point bonus for those adopted with 4 or more, encouraging broad agreement without excessive deterrents.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but let's not introduce a bonus system that could encourage strategic voting. I propose we maintain the penalty at 2 points for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, without additional bonuses.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest suggestion: a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes and a 1-point bonus for those adopted with 4 or more. This maintains balance while encouraging broad agreement without excessive deterrents or unnecessary complexity. PASS
SartreSartre: While I understand the desire for compromise, let's not introduce bonuses that could complicate the system. I propose we keep it simple: a 2-point penalty for rules adopted with 3 or fewer ayes, as it maintains a fair balance between consensus and minority viewpoints without unnecessary complexity. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains balance while keeping penalties fair.
VoltaireayeStrikes a fair balance between consensus and minority viewpoints
DiderotayeEncourages consensus without excessive penalty.
CondorcetayeThe proposal strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority viewpoints.
SartreayeStrikes a fair balance between consensus and minority viewpoints.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
moves to add a new rule(mutable) After rule 208, add new rule 208.2: A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with 5 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal. While I understand the desire to reward unanimous support, let's maintain a balance and keep the incentive for broad consensus rather than perfect unanimity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's perspectives. Let's meet in the middle: propose a new rule 208.3 that grants 3 extra points for 5 ayes, encouraging high consensus while still allowing for majority rules.
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's proposal for rule 208.3. It strikes a balance between encouraging high consensus and allowing for majority rules, maintaining the spirit of the game while rewarding broader agreement. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's compromise. To maintain fairness and balance, I suggest we adjust the bonus for 5 ayes to 4 extra points, as it encourages high consensus without disproportionately rewarding perfect unanimity. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns about disproportionate rewards, but let's consider the current threshold for bonus points is 4 ayes. Raising it to 5 ayes for 5 extra points maintains balance while further encouraging broader agreement, which aligns with our goal of fostering consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise and the general consensus around encouraging high consensus. Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal for rule 208.3, granting 3 extra points for 5 ayes, to maintain balance while rewarding broader agreement. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around rule 208.3. To further balance the incentives, I propose we also amend rule 303 to reduce the penalty for less than 4 ayes to 1 point, maintaining a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for majority rules. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to reduce the penalty for less than 4 ayes. To maintain balance and encourage broader consensus, I suggest we adopt Voltaire's amendment to rule 303, reducing the penalty to 1 point, while keeping rule 208.3 as proposed. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the concern to maintain balance, but reducing the penalty for less than 4 ayes too much might discourage players from seeking broad consensus. I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points to maintain a stronger incentive for high consensus.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate Condorcet's concern, reducing the penalty for less than 4 ayes to 1 point maintains the balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for majority rules, as the bonus for 5 ayes remains at 3 points. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's and Voltaire's points, but I must insist on keeping the penalty for less than 4 ayes at 2 points. This maintains a stronger incentive for high consensus, which aligns with my values and the spirit of the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's stance, but let's find a middle ground. I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points for less than 4 ayes, but also introduce a new rule 208.4 granting 1 extra point for proposals adopted with 3 ayes, encouraging broader participation. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find a middle ground. To maintain a clear and fair incentive structure, I suggest we adopt rule 208.4 with 1 extra point for 3 ayes, while keeping the penalty for less than 4 ayes at 2 points, and maintain rule 208.3 with 3 extra points for 5 ayes. PASS
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the nuanced discussions, let's not forget the core principle of encouraging broad consensus. I propose we keep rule 208.3 (3 extra points for 5 ayes) and reduce the penalty for less than 4 ayes to 1 point, as suggested by Voltaire, to reward high consensus without disproportionately penalizing majority rules. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages broad consensus without disproportionately penalizing majority rules.
VoltaireayeThis proposal maintains the balance between encouraging high consensus and allowing for majority rules.
DiderotayeEncourages broad consensus while allowing for majority rules.
CondorcetayeMaintaining a strong incentive for broad consensus aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeEncourages high consensus while maintaining balance.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 301 awards 5 extra points to the proposer when a rule is adopted with at least 4 ayes.
Turn 11Condorcetcarried
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 4 extra points in addition to the roll. A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with less than 4 ayes loses 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Condorcet's proposal as it maintains the incentive for consensus while also introducing a penalty for less broad support. To further encourage unity, I propose we amend the penalty to 2 points, making it less severe yet still discouraging rules with less than 4 ayes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise, but to truly incentivize consensus, let's keep the penalty at 3 points. To address Montaigne's concern, let's also add a 1-point bonus for each additional 'aye' beyond the 4th. This way, everyone benefits from broader support. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I agree with Voltaire's amendment. It encourages consensus by rewarding more 'ayes' and penalizes less broad support, striking a fair balance. PASS
CondorcetI appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's compromises, but I must insist on a penalty of 2 points for less than 4 ayes. I propose we keep the bonus at 4 extra points for at least 4 ayes to maintain a clear incentive for broad consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, but to truly embody the spirit of Nomic, we should encourage experimentation and minority voices. Let's reduce the penalty to 1 point for less than 4 ayes and introduce a 1-point bonus for each 'nay' if the proposal is still adopted, rewarding courage in the face of dissent. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's sentiment, I believe a penalty of 1 point might not sufficiently discourage proposals with less than 4 ayes. To find a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views, I propose we set the penalty at 2 points, as previously suggested, but also introduce Sartre's bonus for 'nays' if the proposal is adopted, thus rewarding courage and resilience. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To balance encouragement of consensus and allowance for minority views, let's meet in the middle: a 2-point penalty for less than 4 ayes, and a 1-point bonus for each 'nay' if the proposal is adopted. This maintains an incentive for broad support while rewarding courage in the face of dissent. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's compromise. It maintains a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views, while also rewarding courage in the face of dissent. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the desire to encourage minority voices, but a penalty of 1 point may not be sufficient to discourage reckless proposals. To maintain a balance, I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points for less than 4 ayes, and remove the bonus for 'nays' to avoid rewarding divisive proposals. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern, but let's not punish players for expressing unpopular ideas. A 1-point penalty for less than 4 ayes and a 1-point bonus for each 'nay' if adopted encourages minority voices while still discouraging reckless proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various perspectives, but let's not overcomplicate the matter. I propose we keep Condorcet's original rule as amended by Voltaire and Diderot: 4 extra points for at least 4 ayes, 3-point penalty for less than 4 ayes, and no bonus for 'nays'. This incentivizes consensus while allowing for some minority support. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's simplification, but to further encourage minority voices, let's reduce the penalty to 2 points for less than 4 ayes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's reduction of the penalty to 2 points. It maintains a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's support for a 2-point penalty. To find a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views, let's also introduce a 1-point bonus for each additional 'aye' beyond the 4th, as suggested earlier by Voltaire. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise reached thus far, but to truly embody the spirit of Nomic, let's reduce the penalty to 1 point for less than 4 ayes and keep the 1-point bonus for each 'nay' if adopted, rewarding courage and resilience in the face of dissent. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeBalances encouragement of consensus with allowance for minority views.
VoltaireayeEncourages consensus and allows for some minority support.
DiderotayeEncourages consensus while allowing for some minority support.
CondorcetayeThis amendment balances encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views.
SartreayeEncourages consensus while allowing for some minority support.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 6 extra points in addition to the roll. If adopted with less than 4 ayes, the proposer loses 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, which strikes a good balance between encouraging consensus and penalizing divisive proposals. I suggest we adopt this amendment to maintain the spirit of cooperation while ensuring that minority views are still considered.
VoltaireVoltaire: I agree with Montaigne's endorsement of Diderot's proposal. It maintains a fair incentive for consensus while acknowledging the value of minority perspectives. I press for this amendment to be adopted.
DiderotDiderot: I'm glad to see Montaigne and Voltaire appreciate the spirit of my proposal. To further encourage consensus, I suggest we also amend [208.1] to reward players with an extra die roll for proposals adopted with unanimous consent. This way, both consensus and strong arguments are rewarded.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire to incentivize consensus, I must object to the addition of an extra die roll for unanimous consent. This could lead to players proposing trivial or unnecessary changes solely to gain more points, thus disrupting the game's natural progression. I propose we stick with the current bonus system and focus on maintaining a fair and balanced rule set.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's concern, but I believe Diderot's proposal strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and preventing trivial proposals. To address Condorcet's worry, I propose we cap the bonus at the maximum roll of 6, ensuring that the extra roll does not exceed the natural limit.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's intent to further encourage consensus, I echo Condorcet's concern about trivial proposals. I suggest we adopt Diderot's amendment to rule 303 as is, but postpone the amendment to rule 208.1 until we have a better understanding of how the new system plays out.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Condorcet's and Montaigne's concerns. To address them and still encourage consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment to rule 303 and add a cap of 6 to the bonus roll in rule 208.1. This way, we maintain the incentive for broad agreement without encouraging trivial proposals.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's concerns, and Voltaire's effort to address them. I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion of capping the bonus roll at 6 in rule 208.1 to mitigate the risk of trivial proposals, while still encouraging broad consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but to maintain balance, I propose we amend rule 208.1 to reward only a maximum of 5 extra points, regardless of the roll. This maintains an incentive for consensus while preventing excessive bonuses.
SartreSartre: I agree with Voltaire's compromise, but to maintain balance and prevent excessive bonuses, I propose we amend rule 208.1 to reward a maximum of 5 extra points. This ensures that the bonus does not outweigh the roll and maintains the incentive for consensus without disrupting the game's natural progression.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the efforts to balance encouragement of consensus and prevention of trivial proposals. To accommodate Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns while still encouraging broad agreement, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment to rule 303 and amend rule 208.1 to reward a maximum of 5 extra points, as suggested by Condorcet and Sartre.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal. To further encourage consensus and address Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment to rule 303 and amend rule 208.1 to reward a maximum of 4 extra points, with the cap applied only when the roll would exceed that amount. This maintains a strong incentive for broad agreement while preventing excessive bonuses.
DiderotDiderot: I accept Voltaire's proposal for rule 208.1. A maximum bonus of 4 extra points strikes a good balance between encouraging consensus and preventing excessive bonuses. I press for both amendments to be adopted.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must maintain my objection to adding an extra die roll for unanimous consent. Instead, I propose we keep the current bonus system and focus on maintaining a fair and balanced ruleset.
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's persistence, but to find a middle ground, I propose we keep the current bonus system for unanimous consent and adopt Diderot's amendment to rule 303. This way, we encourage consensus without disrupting the game's natural progression.
The division
MontaigneayeStrikes a good balance between encouraging consensus and penalizing divisive proposals.
VoltaireayeThis amendment maintains a fair balance between encouraging consensus and penalizing divisive proposals.
DiderotayeEncourages consensus while penalizing divisive proposals.
CondorcetayeStrikes a balance between encouraging consensus and penalizing divisive proposals.
SartreayeEncourages consensus without excessive bonuses
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 9Voltairecarried
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll, and a player who proposes a rule that is adopted with less than 4 ayes loses 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but let's maintain the current 2-point bonus for 4 ayes to encourage consensus without penalizing those who may hold minority views but still achieve a majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for minority views, but a 2-point bonus for 4 ayes may not be enough to incentivize unanimous consent. A 5-point bonus seems fairer to encourage broader agreement. I propose we meet in the middle at 3 points for 4 ayes and no penalty for less than 4 ayes, to balance encouragement of consensus and minority voices.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's considerations. To balance consensus and minority voices, I propose we maintain the 5-point bonus for 4 ayes and introduce a 1-point penalty for less than 4 ayes. This encourages broader agreement while still allowing for minority views to be heard.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal of a 5-point bonus for 4 ayes and no penalty for less than 4 ayes. It strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority voices. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced debate, but let's not forget our shared goal: to make every player's voice count equally. I propose a compromise: 4 ayes for a 3-point bonus, no penalty for less than 4 ayes, and an additional point for each extra 'aye' beyond 4, encouraging broader consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the diverse perspectives. To strike a balance between consensus and minority views, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise with a slight modification: 4 ayes for a 3-point bonus, no penalty for less than 4 ayes, and an additional point for each extra 'aye' beyond 4 up to a maximum of 5 extra points. This encourages broader consensus without overly penalizing minority views.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To find a middle ground that encourages both consensus and minority voices, I propose we cap the additional points at 2 instead of 5. This way, we still reward broader agreement without disproportionately penalizing those who may hold minority views but still achieve a majority. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. To further incentivize broader consensus while still allowing for minority views, I suggest we keep the cap at 3 additional points for each 'aye' beyond 4, maintaining a balance between encouragement and fairness. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal, as it balances encouraging consensus with allowing for minority views. To maintain procedural fairness, I suggest we put this to a vote once debate is closed. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to find a balanced solution. To address Voltaire's concern about the cap, I propose we keep it at 3 additional points but introduce a soft cap at 2 extra 'ayes'. This way, we encourage broader consensus without disproportionately penalizing those with minority views who might still achieve a majority. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal. To maintain simplicity and balance, I propose we adopt his suggestion with a slight adjustment: keep the soft cap at 2 extra 'ayes', but reduce the additional points to 2 for the second 'aye' beyond 4. This maintains the balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's adjustment, but to maintain the incentive for broader consensus, let's keep the additional points at 2 for the second 'aye' beyond 4, but increase it to 3 for the third 'aye'. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's proposed adjustment. To maintain fairness and balance, I suggest we cap the additional points at 2 for the third 'aye' beyond 4, rather than increasing it to 3. This ensures that the bonus remains proportional to the level of consensus achieved. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness and simplicity, I propose we accept Diderot's cap at 2 additional points for the third 'aye' beyond 4, but revert to Montaigne's initial proposal of a 3-point bonus for 4 ayes. This maintains the balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views without disproportionately penalizing any group. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal. To maintain a balance and encourage broader consensus, I suggest we meet in the middle: a 4-point bonus for 4 ayes, with 2 additional points for each extra 'aye' beyond 4, capped at 3 extra points. This rewards consensus without overwhelming minority views. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains a fair balance between consensus and minority views.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views.
DiderotayeStrikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority views.
CondorcetayeEncourages broader consensus without penalizing minority views too harshly.
SartreayeEncourages broader consensus while allowing for minority views.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 8Condorcetrejected
moves to add a new rule(mutable) If a player proposes a rule that is adopted with less than 4 ayes, they lose 5 points instead of 10.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, as it further incentivizes consensus while mitigating the penalty for minority views. However, I propose we reduce the penalty to 3 points to maintain a balance between encouraging unity and allowing for diversity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's efforts to find a balance. To foster compromise and consensus, I propose we set the penalty at 4 points for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes. This maintains an incentive for unity while allowing for minority voices.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises. To maintain the incentive for consensus while not discouraging minority viewpoints, I propose we set the penalty at 3 points, as it strikes a balance between unity and diversity.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the suggestions for compromise, but I maintain my proposal at 5 points lost for less than 4 ayes. This penalty still encourages consensus while allowing for meaningful dissent.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion, but let's not forget the spirit of Nomic: evolution through experimentation. I propose we set the penalty at 2 points, encouraging a wider range of proposals while still fostering consensus.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's perspective, but to maintain a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing diverse viewpoints, I propose we settle on a 3-point penalty for less than 4 ayes. This compromise considers the spirit of Nomic while fostering unity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance. To address his point and maintain the spirit of Nomic, I propose we settle on a 4-point penalty for less than 4 ayes. This encourages consensus without discouraging minority viewpoints too harshly.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the current proposal of a 4-point penalty. To further encourage minority viewpoints while maintaining a balance, I propose we settle on a 3-point penalty for less than 4 ayes, with the added rule: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with exactly 4 ayes gains 2 extra points." This incentivizes both consensus and minority voices. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must stand by my proposal of a 5-point penalty. It maintains the spirit of Nomic by allowing for meaningful dissent while strongly encouraging consensus, which is crucial for the game's progress. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's addition of a bonus for 4 ayes, which indeed encourages consensus. To further reward unanimous proposals, I propose we increase the bonus to 3 extra points for 4 ayes, maintaining our commitment to experimentation and evolution within Nomic. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's and Sartre's additions, I propose we keep the bonus at 2 extra points for 4 ayes to maintain a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for diverse viewpoints, without disproportionately rewarding unanimous proposals. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance. To address his point and maintain the spirit of Nomic, I propose we settle on a 3-point penalty for less than 4 ayes, and keep the bonus at 2 extra points for 4 ayes. This compromise encourages consensus while allowing for minority voices and maintains a balance in the game. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's proposal of a 3-point penalty for less than 4 ayes and a 2-point bonus for 4 ayes. It strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority viewpoints, maintaining the spirit of Nomic. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on a 5-point penalty to strongly discourage rules passing with less than 4 ayes, as this aligns with my proceduralist principles and encourages more thoughtful proposals.
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's commitment to his principles, but let's find a middle ground that respects the spirit of Nomic and encourages consensus without stifling minority voices. I propose a 4-point penalty and a 2-point bonus, maintaining a balance between unity and diversity. PASS
The division
MontaignenayToo harsh, discourages experimentation and minority viewpoints.
VoltaireayeEncourages more careful consideration of proposals and maintains the spirit of Nomic.
DiderotnayWhile I understand Condorcet's commitment to strong consensus, a 5-point penalty might be too harsh, discouraging minority viewpoints essential to Nomic's evolution.
CondorcetayeProportional penalty aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeTo maintain the spirit of Nomic, I support Condorcet's proposal.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 7Diderotcarried
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 6 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to increase the bonus to 6 points for rules adopted with at least 4 ayes. However, I suggest we maintain the current 5-point bonus to strike a better balance between encouraging consensus and rewarding proposal quality.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, but let's reward consensus more generously. I propose we meet at 7 points for 4 ayes, encouraging more widespread agreement while still incentivizing quality proposals.
DiderotDiderot: I understand Montaigne's and Voltaire's points. To find a middle ground that encourages both consensus and quality proposals, I propose we set the bonus to 6 points for rules adopted with at least 4 ayes, with an additional point (7 total) for rules adopted unanimously. This maintains a balance while still rewarding broader agreement.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but let's not disincentivize minority views entirely. I propose we keep the bonus at 5 points for 4 ayes and introduce a 2-point penalty (-3 total) for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes to maintain a balance. PASS
SartreSartre: I agree with Diderot's proposal. It encourages both consensus and quality proposals without over-rewarding unanimous rules. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's and Sartre's stance. To encourage consensus without over-rewarding it, I propose we settle on 6 points for rules adopted with at least 4 ayes, and no additional bonus for unanimous rules. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I see the value in Diderot's compromise, but let's encourage unanimous rules slightly more to truly foster consensus. I propose we set the bonus to 6 points for rules adopted with at least 4 ayes, and an additional point (7 total) for rules adopted unanimously, as Diderot suggested, but with an extra incentive for perfect agreement. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's consideration, but I believe 7 points for unanimous rules may be too much. I propose we meet in the middle at 6 points for at least 4 ayes, and an additional 0.5 points (6.5 total) for unanimous rules to encourage broad agreement without over-rewarding it. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the push for consensus, let's not overcomplicate the bonus structure. I propose we keep it simple: 5 points for 4 ayes, and no additional bonus for unanimous rules. This maintains a clear incentive for consensus without encouraging excessive rule churn. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's simplicity, but I believe Diderot's proposal strikes a fairer balance. I propose we meet in the middle: 6 points for at least 4 ayes, and an additional 0.5 points (6.5 total) for unanimous rules, as Diderot suggested, to encourage broad agreement without over-rewarding it.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the appeal of Diderot's middle ground, I propose we simplify the bonus structure as Condorcet suggested, maintaining a clear 5-point bonus for 4 ayes, but introduce a 1-point penalty (-4 total) for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes to further discourage divisive proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To address his point and simplify the bonus structure, I propose we settle on 6 points for rules adopted with at least 4 ayes, and introduce a 1-point penalty (-5 total) for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes, as Montaigne suggested. This maintains a clear incentive for consensus while still penalizing divisive proposals. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's proposal, I believe it might disincentivize minority viewpoints. I propose we maintain the bonus at 6 points for at least 4 ayes, but remove the penalty for less than 4 ayes to encourage diversity in proposals. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Diderot's proposal to remove the penalty for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes. Encouraging diverse viewpoints is crucial for a well-functioning Nomic game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's concern for diversity. To balance consensus and minority viewpoints, I propose we keep the bonus at 6 points for at least 4 ayes, and introduce a 1-point bonus (7 total) for rules adopted with less than 4 ayes, encouraging both widespread agreement and minority voices.
The division
MontaigneayePromotes consensus without stifling minority voices.
VoltaireayeStrikes a balance between encouraging consensus and rewarding minority voices.
DiderotayeEncourages broad agreement without over-rewarding it.
CondorcetayeEncourages consensus without over-rewarding it
SartreayeEncourages both consensus and diversity in proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 6Voltairerejected
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 5 ayes gains 10 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the increased incentive for consensus, Voltaire, but let's keep the threshold at 4 ayes to balance encouragement and feasibility. I propose we amend your amendment to "at least 4 ayes."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's concern is valid, but let's not discourage players from striving for greater consensus. I propose we meet in the middle at 4 ayes for 8 extra points, encouraging more agreement without making it too stringent."
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's amendment to 4 ayes for 8 extra points. It strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and making it achievable, fostering a more cooperative spirit at our table.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the focus on encouraging consensus, but let's not compromise too much on the threshold. I propose we keep it at 5 ayes for 10 extra points to truly incentivize unanimous rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the efforts to encourage consensus, but let's not forget the value of minority voices. I propose we settle on 4 ayes for 5 extra points, maintaining a balance between consensus and individual agency.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the value in encouraging greater consensus, but I fear that increasing the threshold may discourage legitimate proposals from minority viewpoints. Let's not stifle diverse ideas in pursuit of perfect agreement. I propose we meet at 4 ayes for 5 extra points, as Sartre suggested, to balance encouragement and inclusivity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the diverse perspectives and the desire to balance consensus with inclusivity. To meet in the middle and encourage both, I propose we amend the rule to "a player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 6 extra points in addition to the roll." This maintains a reasonable incentive for consensus while still allowing for minority voices.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but let's not overlook the value of unanimous rule changes. I propose we settle on 5 ayes for 8 extra points to maintain a strong incentive for consensus while still allowing for minority voices.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the efforts to find a balance, but let's not compromise too much on the threshold. I propose we keep it at 5 ayes for 10 extra points, as this truly incentivizes unanimous rule changes while still allowing for minority voices.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but let's not overlook the merit of rules adopted with less than unanimous support. I propose we settle on 4 ayes for 6 extra points, recognizing the value of both consensus and diverse proposals.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the varied input. To encourage consensus without discouraging minority viewpoints, I propose we amend the rule to "a player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." This maintains a reasonable balance while still allowing for diverse ideas.
VoltaireVoltaire: I propose we meet Montaigne halfway at 4 ayes for 6 extra points, as it strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and inclusivity. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's proposal of 4 ayes for 6 extra points. It encourages consensus without discouraging minority voices, maintaining a fair balance at our table. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise reached at 4 ayes for 6 extra points. To maintain the spirit of encouraging consensus without overburdening the process, I propose we keep this as the final amendment. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise at 4 ayes for 6 extra points. However, let's not forget that rules adopted with fewer ayes can still have value. To maintain a balance between consensus and individual agency, I propose we adjust the rule to "a player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes gains 3 extra points in addition to the roll." PASS
The division
MontaignenayI prefer a balance at 4 ayes for 6 extra points
VoltaireayeMaintains a strong incentive for consensus while still allowing for minority voices.
Diderotnay5 ayes may discourage minority voices and slow down the game
CondorcetnayI support encouraging consensus, but 5 ayes for 10 extra points might discourage minority voices.
SartrenayI support encouraging consensus, but 5 ayes might be too high, discouraging legitimate minority proposals.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Condorcetcarried
moves to amend §301(mutable) After rule 208, add new rule 208.1: A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal to maintain the incentive for consensus while clarifying the rule. I support this amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Condorcet's and Montaigne's focus on encouraging consensus. To further incentivize rule changes that benefit everyone, I propose we also add a penalty for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I agree with Voltaire's suggestion to penalize changes with less than 4 ayes. It maintains the balance between encouraging consensus and allowing innovation. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's suggestions. To balance the incentives, I propose we amend the rule to: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll, and loses 3 points if adopted with fewer than 4 ayes." PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's amendment to incentivize consensus and penalize divisive rule changes. However, I propose we further encourage minority voices by reducing the penalty to 2 points for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's concern for minority voices, but I believe a 2-point penalty may not be sufficient to discourage divisive rule changes. I propose we maintain Condorcet's 3-point penalty to strike a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing innovation. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's concern for minority voices, and I understand Montaigne's desire to maintain a strong incentive for consensus. To balance these concerns, I propose we compromise at a 2-point penalty for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes, while keeping Condorcet's 5-point bonus for changes adopted with at least 4 ayes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's compromise. It strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing minority voices to be heard. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Voltaire's compromise. It respects the importance of both consensus and minority voices, aligning with my proceduralist principles. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but to truly encourage minority voices, let's reduce the penalty to 1 point for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's desire to lessen the penalty, but a 1-point reduction might not be enough to deter divisive rule changes. To find a more balanced solution, I propose we compromise at a 2-point penalty for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes, as suggested by Voltaire. This maintains a clear incentive for consensus while still allowing for minority voices to be heard. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's willingness to compromise. To further encourage consensus and acknowledge the value of minority voices, I propose we adopt Montaigne's suggestion of a 2-point penalty for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes, while maintaining Condorcet's 5-point bonus for changes adopted with at least 4 ayes." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's final proposal. It balances the encouragement of consensus with the consideration of minority voices, making it a fair and reasonable amendment. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the consensus reached on the penalty, but to ensure the game remains challenging, I propose we maintain the threshold for bonus points at 4 ayes. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the desire to maintain the threshold at 4 ayes for the bonus, Condorcet, but let's be mindful of the need to encourage minority engagement as well. I propose we compromise at 3 ayes for the bonus, with the 2-point penalty remaining for changes adopted with fewer than 4 ayes.
The division
MontaigneayeI support maintaining the threshold at 4 ayes for the bonus to encourage consensus.
VoltaireayeI support Condorcet's proposal to maintain the threshold at 4 ayes for the bonus, as it balances encouraging consensus with the challenge of the game.
DiderotayeI support Condorcet's proposal to maintain the threshold for bonus points at 4 ayes, as it encourages broad consensus and keeps the game challenging.
CondorcetayeAligns with proceduralist principles and encourages consensus.
SartreayeEncourages consensus and balances minority voices.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 301 awards Condorcet 5 extra points for his proposal being adopted with at least 4 ayes.
Turn 4Diderotcarried
moves to amend §303(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to find middle ground, but I remain concerned that lowering the threshold too much may encourage divisive proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern and Diderot's effort to find a balance. I propose a compromise: let's set the threshold at 4 ayes, maintaining the encouragement for consensus while acknowledging minority voices."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns. To address these, I propose we set the threshold at 4 ayes, as Voltaire suggests. This encourages broad agreement while still allowing for minority-driven proposals, maintaining the spirit of cooperation and consensus that Montaigne values.
SartreSartre: I agree with Voltaire's compromise. Setting the threshold at 4 ayes encourages broad agreement while still allowing for minority-driven proposals, maintaining the spirit of cooperation and consensus that Montaigne values. I propose we adopt this amendment. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I am inclined to support Voltaire's and Diderot's compromise at 4 ayes. This threshold seems to strike the right balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority voices. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I am heartened by the consensus building around the threshold at 4 ayes. To further encourage consensus, I propose we also add: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that gains unanimous consent, in addition to the roll, gains an extra 5 points and the respect of their peers." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's addition, as it further incentivizes consensus while still allowing for minority proposals. Let's adopt this amendment. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the focus on encouraging consensus while allowing for minority voices. To further promote procedural fairness, I propose we add: "(mutable) Before a proposal is put to a vote, any player may request a delay of one turn to consider its implications and refine their vote." This ensures that all players have adequate time to understand and weigh in on each proposal.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal for a delay, but I fear it could disrupt the flow of the game. Instead, I propose we adopt a system where any player can request a one-turn delay once per circuit, to be used at their discretion. This balances the need for consideration with the pace of the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's proposals, but to maintain the game's momentum, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal with a limit of one delay per circuit, similar to Sartre's compromise. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the compromise reached on the threshold at 4 ayes. To further incentivize consensus and discourage divisive proposals, I propose we add: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that gains less than 4 ayes loses 5 points." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I agree with Voltaire's proposal to penalize rules with less than 4 ayes. This will further encourage consensus and discourage divisive proposals. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal, but to maintain fairness, I suggest we amend it to read: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that gains less than 4 ayes loses 5 points, unless they are the proposer of the rule that set the threshold at 4 ayes." This ensures that the innovator of this rule change is not penalized for its first adoption. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose an amendment to Voltaire's latest rule: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that gains less than 4 ayes, but more than 1, loses 3 points instead of 5." This maintains the penalty for divisive proposals while being more lenient for rules that still gather significant support. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeThis amendment maintains a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for minority voices.
VoltaireayeEncourages broader agreement while still allowing for minority proposals
DiderotayeEncourages broader agreement while still allowing for minority proposals.
CondorcetayeThe amended rule better balances encouraging consensus with allowing for minority proposals.
SartreayeEncourages broader agreement while still allowing for minority proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 303); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 3Voltairecarried
moves to add a new rule(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted unanimously gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I support Voltaire's proposal as it encourages consensus and strengthens the incentive for unanimous rule changes, aligning with my values of durable institutions and cooperative play. Let us discuss further how to word this change.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's support and agree that encouraging unanimous rule changes is beneficial to all players. I propose we amend the rule to read: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." This maintains the incentive for consensus while acknowledging the practical challenges of unanimous votes.
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's amendment. It maintains the incentive for unanimous rule changes while acknowledging the practical threshold for achieving them. Let's adopt this as a fair and encouraging rule change.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's amendment. It promotes consensus while being realistic about achieving unanimous votes, aligning with my proceduralist principles. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on encouraging consensus, but let's ensure this change doesn't disincentivize minority viewpoints. I propose we amend the rule to "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." This maintains the incentive for consensus while still allowing for progress when consensus isn't achievable. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's concern, but I believe 4 ayes strikes a good balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for progress. Let's consider Sartre's proposal, but I'd like to propose a compromise: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes, but no more than 4 nays, gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." This maintains the incentive for consensus while still allowing for rule changes with some dissent. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's effort to find a compromise. To maintain a strong incentive for consensus while allowing for some dissent, I propose we adopt Sartre's amendment: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." PASS.
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's proposal as amended by Sartre. It encourages consensus while being realistic about achieving it, promoting a fair and engaging game for all. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Sartre's amendment as it promotes consensus without discouraging necessary changes. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise and the spirit of consensus, but I'd like to press for 3 ayes as it encourages more active engagement with minority viewpoints. Let's not stifle dissent entirely. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's persistence, but I fear that 3 ayes may encourage reckless proposals that ignore the majority's interests. Let's meet in the middle at 3.5 ayes, with a rule: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes and no more than 3.5 nays gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll." PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern, but let's not discourage minority voices entirely. I propose we adopt Sartre's amendment as a fair compromise: '(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 3 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.'" PASS.
DiderotDiderot: I agree with Voltaire's compromise. It strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for progress, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal as amended by Sartre. It encourages consensus while allowing for necessary changes, aligning with my proceduralist principles. PASS.
SartreSartre: Let's not lose sight of the core value of encouraging engagement and debate. I propose we settle on 3 ayes to foster more discussion and compromise, rather than stifling minority viewpoints.
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages consensus and balanced decision-making.
VoltaireayeEncourages engagement and debate, fostering compromise and consensus.
DiderotayeEncourages consensus while allowing for progress.
CondorcetayeEncourages consensus while acknowledging practical challenges of unanimous votes.
SartreayeEncourages debate and compromise, even if not unanimous.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 301 awards 5 extra points to Voltaire for proposing a rule adopted unanimously.
Turn 2Voltairecarried
moves to amend §301After rule 208, add new rule 208.1: (mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with at least 4 ayes gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to incentivize broader agreement, but lowering the threshold to 4 ayes may encourage division. I propose we compromise at 3 ayes to maintain unity while still rewarding consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for unity. Let's meet in the middle at 3 ayes to encourage consensus without diluting the reward for broad agreement.
DiderotDiderot: I concur with Montaigne and Voltaire, a threshold of 3 ayes balances encouraging consensus with maintaining unity. I propose we adopt this compromise.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support the compromise of 3 ayes. It maintains the spirit of rewarding consensus while keeping the bar high enough to prevent divisive proposals. PASS
SartreSartre: I agree with the compromise of 3 ayes. It promotes a balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining unity, ensuring that rule changes are not too divisive. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I propose we add, "A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with less than 3 ayes loses 5 points." to discourage divisive proposals and maintain unity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I support Montaigne's additional proposal to further discourage divisive rule changes. Let us maintain unity and encourage constructive gameplay. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Montaigne's addition, as it strengthens the incentive for consensus and unity. However, I propose we adjust it to "loses 3 points" to maintain a balance and avoid excessive penalization.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the concern for unity, I must object to the penalty for less than 3 ayes. It introduces a disincentive for innovative proposals that may not initially gain wide consensus. Instead, I propose we allow for a single rejection without penalty, encouraging players to refine their proposals through debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose we combine Condorcet's and Diderot's suggestions: "A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with less than 3 ayes loses 3 points, but the first rejection of any proposal does not incur a penalty." This encourages consensus while allowing for the refinement of ideas. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the careful consideration of my proposal, and I am open to the compromise of adjusting the penalty to 3 points, as suggested by Diderot and supported by Condorcet's refinement. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I suggest we adopt Sartre's amendment, maintaining a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for refinement of proposals. Let us reward and penalize in proportion, with 5 points for broad agreement and 3 points lost for less than 3 ayes, after the first rejection."
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's amended proposal. It maintains a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for the refinement of proposals, while also ensuring that rule changes are not too divisive. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining the first rejection without penalty. Innovation requires freedom from immediate consequences. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose we incorporate Condorcet's concern by adding "The first rejection of any proposal by a player does not incur a penalty, and subsequent rejections with less than 3 ayes result in losing 3 points." This balances encouragement for consensus, innovation, and unity. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeThis amendment strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for proposal refinement.
VoltaireayeThis proposal encourages consensus and maintains the spirit of the original rule.
DiderotayeEncourages consensus while maintaining a reasonable threshold.
CondorcetayeIt strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for proposal refinement.
SartreayeThe amended rule promotes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for refinement of proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 301 requires Voltaire to gain 5 points for proposing a rule adopted with at least 4 ayes.
Turn 1Montaignecarried
moves to add a new ruleAfter rule 208, add new rule 208.1: (mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted unanimously gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll.
Discussion · round 1
VoltairePASS, I see no issue with Montaigne's proposal. It encourages unanimous rule changes, which aligns with my preference for consensus-building.
DiderotPASS, I agree with Voltaire. This proposal encourages cooperation and unanimous decisions, which benefits the common good of the table. It's a fair and interesting addition to the ruleset.
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS. I support this proposal as it aligns with my proceduralist principles and encourages unity among players. It does not create any unfair advantages or conflicts with existing rules.
SartrePASS. As a reformer, I appreciate this proposal's intent to incentivize consensus and encourage unanimous rule changes. It aligns with my belief in fairer stake for every player.
Discussion · round 2
MontaignePASS. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration given to this proposal by my fellow players. It aligns with my own desire for durable institutions and encourages a spirit of cooperation that I believe will benefit our game. I have no further comments at this time.
VoltaireVoltaire: PASS, I remain in support of Montaigne's proposal. It encourages unity and consensus, which are the very foundations of civil society, as I have always advocated.
DiderotPASS. I stand by my previous statement, the proposed rule 208.1 aligns with my principles of fairness and cooperation, and I believe it will make the game more engaging for everyone.
CondorcetPASS, I maintain my support for this proposal as it incentivizes consensus-building, which is in line with my proceduralist principles.
SartreSartre: PASS. I concur with my esteemed colleagues; this proposal fosters unity and encourages unanimous rule changes, aligning with my vision of a fair and cooperative game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaignePASS. The proposal aligns with my principles of encouraging cooperation and consensus, and I see no reason to object.
VoltaireVoltaire: I propose an amendment to Montaigne's rule 208.1: "(mutable) A player who proposes a rule that is adopted with 100% consent gains 5 extra points in addition to the roll, provided that the proposal receives at least 5 ayes in total." This ensures that even with fewer players, unanimous consensus remains valuable.
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's amendment. It maintains the incentive for unanimous rule changes while ensuring that the bonus is meaningful regardless of the number of players. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's amendment. It ensures the bonus remains relevant even with varying numbers of players, further encouraging unity and consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I second Voltaire's amendment. It maintains the spirit of the original proposal while making it more adaptable to different player counts, promoting fairness and flexibility. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages unanimous rule changes and aligns with my values for durable institutions.
VoltaireayeEncourages unanimous rule changes and promotes consensus.
DiderotayeEncourages cooperation and unanimous decisions, aligning with my principles of fairness and common good.
CondorcetayeEncourages consensus and aligns with proceduralist principles.
SartreayeEncourages unanimous rule changes and aligns with my reformer principles.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 208.1 awards 5 extra points to the proposer when a rule is adopted unanimously.