Turns 1–9 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 9Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 15 points and may not propose the same change again on their next two turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's focus on deterrence, let's not overlook the importance of allowing proposers another chance to learn and adapt. I propose we meet in the middle: a 12-point loss and a one-turn cooldown.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for learning, but we must also discourage repeated failures. Let's compromise at a 10-point loss and a one-turn cooldown."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their mistakes. I propose we keep the one-turn cooldown and reduce the loss to 10 points.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a minor adjustment to Diderot-2's suggestion: let's maintain the 10-point loss but extend the cooldown to two turns to balance learning and deterrence.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not stifle the spirit of continuous learning and experimentation. I propose we keep the one-turn cooldown and reduce the loss to 5 points.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I respect Condorcet-2's balancing act, I propose a middle ground: a 10-point loss and a one-turn cooldown to maintain a measured pace of learning and amendment.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises suggested, but I maintain that a two-turn cooldown is necessary to discourage reckless proposals. Let's meet in the middle: a 12-point loss and a two-turn cooldown."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not forget the core principle of learning from mistakes. I propose we settle on a 10-point loss and a one-turn cooldown, balancing deterrence with the opportunity for proposers to learn and adapt.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance learning and deterrence, I propose a 10-point loss and a one-turn cooldown. This maintains the opportunity for proposers to adapt and learn from their mistakes while discouraging repeated failures.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand the desire for deterrence, let's not stifle experimentation. I propose a compromise: a 8-point loss and a one-turn cooldown, encouraging proposers to learn and adapt while discouraging repeated failures.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the varied perspectives, but let's find a balanced solution that both encourages learning and discourages reckless proposals. I suggest we meet in the middle: a 10-point loss and a one-turn cooldown, as proposed by Condorcet-2 and supported by Diderot-2. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I concede to Condorcet-2's proposal, as it balances learning and deterrence effectively. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the progress made, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their mistakes without excessive penalty. I propose a 5-point loss and a one-turn cooldown.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for learning, but a 5-point loss may be too lenient. Let's meet in the middle at 8 points lost and maintain the one-turn cooldown to preserve a balance between learning and deterrence. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's balanced proposal, but let's encourage proposers to take more risks. I propose a 5-point loss and a one-turn cooldown.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA balanced compromise between learning and deterrence
Voltaire-2nayI prefer Condorcet-2's balanced proposal of 8 points lost and a one-turn cooldown.
Diderot-2nayA 15-point loss is too severe and discourages proposers from learning and adapting.
Condorcet-2ayeBalances learning and deterrence while keeping proposals accessible.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages proposers to take more risks and learn from their mistakes.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 15 points when their proposal is adopted.
Turn 8Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleAfter a proposal is adopted, the proposer must wait three turns before proposing again.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a delay of two turns, as currently implemented in rule 307, to maintain a balance between proposal frequency and learning from past attempts.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, let's not stifle the spirit of innovation. I propose we increase the delay to three turns to encourage more thoughtful proposals and reduce repetition."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for thoughtful proposals, but a three-turn delay might hinder progress. Let's compromise at two turns, as it balances innovation and learning, as per rule 307.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and prevent undue delay, let's retain the two-turn delay as per rule 307, but allow proposers to reduce it to one turn if their previous proposal was defeated.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle, making the delay two turns for all, but allow proposers to reduce it to one turn if their previous proposal was defeated, as suggested by Condorcet-2. This balances innovation with learning and prevents excessive delay.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's balanced proposals, but let's maintain consistency by sticking to the current two-turn delay. To encourage learning, we could allow proposers to reduce the delay to one turn if their previous proposal was defeated by a narrow margin.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage continuous learning and adaptation, let's allow proposers to reduce the delay to one turn if their previous proposal was defeated by any margin, not just a narrow one.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Sartre-2 and supported by Condorcet-2, but let's maintain the two-turn delay as the standard to preserve balance and progress. I propose an additional clause: if a proposal is defeated due to a tie vote, the proposer may reduce the delay to one turn, encouraging learning from close calls.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance innovation and learning, let's keep the standard delay at two turns, as per rule 307. However, to encourage proposers to learn from their mistakes, let's allow a one-turn delay if their previous proposal was defeated by more than half of the votes cast, aligning with the current adoption threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster continuous evolution and adaptability, I propose we allow proposers to reduce the delay to one turn if their previous proposal failed by a simple majority vote. This encourages learning from both narrow and decisive defeats, while still promoting thoughtful proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of preserving a measured pace of innovation and learning, let's settle on Condorcet-2's proposal: a standard two-turn delay, with the option to reduce it to one turn if the previous proposal was defeated by more than half of the votes cast. This strikes a balance between progress and reflection. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage proposers to learn from their defeats and adapt their strategies, let's allow a one-turn delay if their previous proposal failed by a simple majority vote, as proposed by Sartre-2. This will foster continuous evolution and adaptability, without hindering progress.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's keep the standard delay at two turns as per rule 307 to maintain balance. To encourage learning from defeats, let's allow a one-turn delay if the previous proposal was defeated by less than a third of the votes, promoting reflection without hindering progress excessively.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure proposers are held accountable for their actions, let's require a two-turn delay regardless of the outcome of the previous proposal. This encourages proposers to carefully consider their changes and prevents frivolous proposals. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance progress with learning, let's compromise at a standard two-turn delay, with the option to reduce it to one turn if the previous proposal failed by a simple majority vote, as previously suggested. This encourages proposers to learn from both narrow and decisive defeats while still promoting thoughtful proposals.
The division
Montaigne-2nayPreserving a balanced pace of innovation and learning is crucial. A three-turn delay might hinder progress.
Voltaire-2nayMaintaining the balance between innovation and learning, two turns is sufficient.
Diderot-2nayA three-turn delay could hinder progress and discourage innovation.
Condorcet-2nayTo prevent undue delay and maintain balance, a two-turn delay is sufficient.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages more thoughtful proposals and reduces repetition.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 7Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleAfter a proposal is adopted, the proposer must wait two turns before proposing again.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support this proposal as it encourages measured amendments and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals. Let's aim for balance, not restriction.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of balance, I propose we amend my suggestion to allow one proposal per turn, ensuring steady progress without overwhelming our fellow players."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's original proposal and Montaigne-2's amendment. However, let's ensure this rule doesn't hinder experimentation or hinder those who have valid consecutive proposals. I propose we allow two proposals per turn, but only if the proposer has a new idea, not a repetition.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "To balance progress and procedural fairness, I suggest we allow one proposal per turn, but with an additional constraint: any player who has already proposed and failed that turn must wait two turns before proposing again."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster evolution and learning, let's combine the best of these proposals: one proposal per turn, but proposers who fail must wait three turns before proposing again, encouraging reflection and adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of balance and evolution in the suggestions. To accommodate valid consecutive proposals and discourage repetition, let's allow two proposals per turn, but each proposal must be distinct from the previous one.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To foster both balance and learning, let's compromise: one proposal per turn, and proposers who fail must wait two turns before proposing again. This encourages reflection without hindering valid consecutive proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the balance Voltaire-2's amendment strikes. To further encourage experimentation, let's allow proposers who succeed to propose again immediately, but only if their next proposal is significantly different from the previous one. This way, we foster both progress and innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure clarity and prevent abuse, let's define "significantly different" as a change that affects the wording and not merely the intent of the previous proposal. Additionally, to maintain procedural fairness, proposers who fail should still be allowed to vote and debate on others' proposals during their wait period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To promote genuine evolution, let's allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted. This encourages continuous innovation and adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve a balance between measured amendments and innovation, let's meet in the middle: allow one proposal per turn, but proposers who fail must wait two turns before proposing again, and their next proposal should introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted. This encourages reflection, adaptation, and continuous evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To ensure balance and continuous learning, let's allow proposers who fail to wait two turns, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted, and only if it's significantly different from their last successful proposal. This encourages adaptation and innovation while maintaining clarity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their failures without hindering progress. I propose we allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn, but their next proposal must address the reason for the failure, ensuring continuous learning and adaptation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of learning and adaptation, I propose we allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must directly address the issue that caused their previous proposal to fail, ensuring continuous learning and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage genuine evolution and learning, let's meet in the middle: allow proposers who fail to wait one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic that addresses the reason for the failure, ensuring continuous adaptation and progress.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances progress with reflection and adaptation.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals while allowing for valid consecutive proposals.
Condorcet-2ayePromotes reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages reflection and adaption after failed proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 6Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 15 points and may not propose the same change again on their next four turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but let's not overly discourage experimentation. I propose we maintain the three-turn penalty to balance progress and learning.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, I believe a four-turn penalty encourages players to refine their proposals rather than rushing to propose again too soon. Let us not stifle innovation, but guide it towards better craftsmanship.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's find a middle ground. I propose we increase the penalty to 12 points and make it a three-turn penalty. This maintains a deterrent while allowing for learning and adaptation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, let's stick with a uniform penalty duration. I propose we meet in the middle at 12 points and retain the three-turn penalty. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the spirit of experimentation, but let's not deter new ideas. I propose we keep the penalty at 10 points and reduce the cooldown to two turns, encouraging proposers to learn and adapt swiftly.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance deterrence and learning, I propose we amend the penalty to 12 points and maintain a three-turn cooldown. This encourages proposers to refine their ideas without discouraging experimentation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to truly discourage reckless proposals, I propose we settle on a 15-point penalty and a four-turn cooldown. Let's not just learn, but also strive for perfection.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's not overly punish failed proposals; I suggest a 12-point penalty and a three-turn cooldown to maintain balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency and fairness, I propose we settle on a 12-point penalty with a three-turn cooldown. This balances learning and deterrence without being overly punitive.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a culture of continuous improvement, I propose we meet at 12 points and two turns. Let's encourage proposers to adapt and learn swiftly, rather than being overly penalized for experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve institutional continuity and learning, let's meet in the middle: a 12-point penalty with a three-turn cooldown. This amendment balances deterrence, experimentation, and adaptation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's amendment: a 12-point penalty with a three-turn cooldown. It strikes a balance between learning, deterrence, and experimentation, allowing for progress without discouraging innovation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their mistakes. I propose we reduce the penalty to 10 points and maintain the three-turn cooldown.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural consistency, I propose we settle on 12 points and three turns, as suggested by the majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage continuous adaptation and learning, I propose we meet at 10 points and two turns, allowing proposers to iterate quickly.
The division
Montaigne-2nayToo harsh, discourages experimentation
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain balance between learning and experimentation, I propose we reduce the penalty to 12 points and maintain a three-turn cooldown.
Diderot-2ayeCompromise proposal that balances deterrence and learning.
Condorcet-2nayConsistency in penalty duration is crucial for fairness.
Sartre-2nayToo harsh on experimentation
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 10 points and may not propose the same change again on their next three turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I see Voltaire-2's suggestion to extend the cooldown period as a reasonable measure to discourage hasty and repetitive proposals. However, I'd like to propose a compromise of a two-turn cooldown to maintain a balance between discouragement and allowing players to adapt and learn from their proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's desire to balance discouragement and learning, but I maintain that a three-turn cooldown better dissuades reckless proposals. However, I'm open to compromise. How about a two-turn cooldown with an additional condition: the proposer must also lose 5 points if they propose the same change again within one turn of its defeat? This maintains the spirit of your proposal while still encouraging players to consider their changes more carefully.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree that a longer cooldown period can discourage hasty proposals, but I also believe in allowing players the opportunity to learn and adapt. Voltaire-2's compromise seems fair, but I propose a slight modification: instead of losing 5 points for proposing the same change within one turn, let's make it a 3-point penalty. This maintains the incentive for careful consideration without being too punitive.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the proposed extensions, but I must insist on precise wording. Let's make it "may not propose the same change again on their next two or fewer turns", ensuring clarity and flexibility without over-penalizing.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine the best aspects of these suggestions. A three-turn cooldown, with a 5-point penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat, but allowing for flexibility in the number of turns the cooldown applies, ranging from two to three turns based on the proposer's discretion. This encourages learning and adaptation while still discouraging reckless proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the varied perspectives and proposals. To balance discouragement and learning, I suggest a two-turn cooldown with a 3-point penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat, but with a ceiling of three turns for the cooldown to maintain flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Montaigne-2's latest proposal: a two-turn cooldown with a 3-point penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat, but with a ceiling of three turns for the cooldown to maintain flexibility. This balances discouragement and learning, encouraging players to consider their changes carefully while still allowing for adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I propose a minor tweak to ensure fairness. Let's make it "may not propose the same change again on their next two turns, or three turns if the proposal was defeated due to a simple majority vote." This accounts for the increased threshold and maintains the spirit of the compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support the latest compromise. To ensure clarity and fairness, let's specify "may not propose the same change again on their next two turns, or three turns if the proposal was defeated due to a simple majority vote, with a 3-point penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat." This maintains the balance between discouragement and learning while providing clear guidelines. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I propose we remove the additional penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat. This encourages learning and adaptation without over-penalizing players.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's focus on learning, I believe a small penalty can still encourage careful consideration without discouraging adaptability. Let's retain the 3-point penalty, but cap it at once per defeat to maintain balance. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise. To further balance discouragement and learning, let's cap the 3-point penalty at once per defeat, but also allow proposers to reduce the cooldown by one turn if they can provide a clear explanation for the change in their proposal. This encourages players to learn and adapt while still maintaining some deterrent effect. PASS.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a minor tweak to Voltaire-2's suggestion: allow proposers to reduce the cooldown by one turn, but only if they can demonstrate significant improvement or address a valid concern raised during the debate. This maintains the spirit of learning and adaptation while still encouraging proposers to be mindful of their changes. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure clarity and fairness, let's specify "may not propose the same change again on their next two turns, or three turns if the proposal was defeated due to a simple majority vote, with a 3-point penalty for proposing the same change within one turn of its defeat, not to exceed once per defeat." This maintains the balance between discouragement and learning while providing clear guidelines. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the focus on balance, but let's encourage experimentation by reducing the cooldown to one turn with no penalty for proposing the same change again, provided the proposer can demonstrate a substantial change or improvement in their proposal. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances discouragement and learning, encouraging careful consideration without over-penalizing.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages careful consideration while maintaining flexibility.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages careful proposals and balances learning and discouragement.
Condorcet-2ayePromotes learning and adaptability while maintaining deterrent effect.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages learning and experimentation while maintaining some deterrent effect.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points upon proposal defeat.
Turn 4Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote. The proposer loses 10 points and may not propose the same change again on their next two turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal to extend the penalty for proposing a defeated change. However, let's not deter players from learning and adapting. I propose we settle for one additional turn penalty instead of two.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but let's not make it too easy for players to repeatedly propose defeated changes. Two turns seems fair, encouraging players to learn and adapt, yet also preventing repeated failures.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns. To balance progress and learning, let's compromise with a single additional turn penalty, but also introduce a new rule that allows players to propose the same change again after two successful proposals by anyone, encouraging strategic learning over repeated failure. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but let's ensure consistency. If a proposal fails, the proposer should not be penalized for learning from the failure. Instead, let's amend [206] to: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next turn, encouraging learning from failures." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace Condorcet-2's spirit of learning, but maintain a deterrent for repeated failures. I propose we amend [206] to: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next turn, but not in the following turn, encouraging strategic learning and discouraging persistent failures." PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's attempt to balance learning and deterrence, but let's not disincentivize adaptation too strongly. I propose we settle on a single additional turn penalty, as suggested by Condorcet-2, and introduce a new rule allowing players to propose the same change again after two successful proposals by anyone, as suggested by Diderot-2. This encourages strategic learning and prevents repeated failures. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's latest proposal. To encourage learning without undue repetition, let's amend [206] as follows: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next turn, but not in the following turn. After two successful proposals by any player, the proposer may again attempt the same change, encouraging strategic learning and preventing persistent failures." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's revised proposal, but let's ensure consistency and fairness. I propose we amend [206] to: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next two turns, encouraging learning from failures and providing a fair opportunity for success." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's emphasis on fairness and learning. To encourage continuous adaptation and prevent stagnation, I propose we amend [206] to allow the proposer to attempt the same change again in their next three turns, with no further restrictions. This provides ample opportunity for learning and adjustment. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's emphasis on adaptation, let's not overlook the importance of maintaining some deterrent for persistent failures. I propose we settle on two turns, as originally suggested by Diderot-2, and introduce a new rule allowing players to propose the same change again after two successful proposals by anyone, as proposed earlier. This balance encourages strategic learning while preventing excessive repetition. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's balanced proposal, but let's encourage learning even more. I propose we amend [206] to: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next three turns, encouraging continuous adaptation." PASS
Diderot-2PASS. Voltaire-2's latest proposal balances learning and deterrence well, encouraging continuous adaptation while preventing excessive repetition.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency and fairness, I propose we amend [206] to: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change. The proposer may propose the same change again in their next two turns, encouraging learning from failures while providing a fair opportunity for success." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on learning, but let's not disregard the importance of a slight deterrent for repeated failures. I propose we amend [206] to allow the proposer to attempt the same change again in their next two turns, as proposed by Condorcet-2, and introduce a new rule allowing players to propose the same change again after two successful proposals by anyone, as previously suggested. This balance encourages strategic learning while preventing excessive repetition. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages learning while maintaining some deterrent for repetition.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages learning and adaptation while maintaining some deterrent.
Diderot-2ayePromotes learning and fair adaptation.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages learning and adaptation while maintaining a reasonable deterrent for repeated failures.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages learning and adaptation while maintaining a deterrent for repeated failures.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a failed proposal.
Turn 3Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleAfter a player proposes a rule change, there is a mandatory one turn delay before voting begins.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support a measured delay, but let's settle on one turn to maintain momentum and fairness.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for momentum, but let us consider the value of thorough debate. A one-turn delay will ensure all voices are heard and no rushed decisions are made. Let us compromise on a one-turn delay, as suggested by Montaigne-2.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I echo Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's sentiments. A one-turn delay strikes a good balance between thoughtful debate and maintaining game momentum.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I concur with the proposal. A one-turn delay encourages thorough consideration of each rule change without impeding progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I concur with the proposal. A one-turn delay encourages deeper reflection and promotes consensus, while still allowing for swift progress. Let's adopt this change to enrich our game. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a one-turn delay as a compromise, respecting thorough debate while maintaining the game's pace.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose an amendment to the delay rule: "After a player proposes a rule change, there is a mandatory one turn delay before voting begins, during which debate can take place." This maintains momentum while allowing for thoughtful consideration. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a slight modification: "After a player proposes a rule change, there is a mandatory one turn delay before voting begins, during which debate and potential revisions can take place." This ensures both thorough consideration and flexibility. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support the proposed amendment by Voltaire-2, which maintains momentum while allowing for thoughtful debate. However, I propose a small clarification: "After a player proposes a rule change, there is a mandatory one turn delay before voting begins, during which debate and potential revisions to the proposal may occur." This ensures that any necessary revisions can be made during the debate phase. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's clarification. Let's adopt this version to ensure flexibility and thoughtful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I support Condorcet-2's clarified version, emphasizing flexibility in the debate phase. To encourage focused discussion, let's also limit the number of revisions to one per proposer during this delay."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for focus, but let us not stifle the spirit of open debate. I propose we allow for up to three revisions during the delay to encourage thorough exploration of ideas.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a compromise: two revisions allowed, with a clear deadline for the proposer to indicate their final wording, ensuring both openness and focus in debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we limit revisions to one per proposer during the delay, to balance focus and flexibility. The proposer should indicate their final wording after the first revision, maintaining clarity and momentum. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's proposal for a single revision to maintain focus and clarity in the debate phase. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages thoughtful debate while maintaining game pace.
Voltaire-2ayeThis rule encourages thoughtful debate without hindering progress.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages thorough debate while maintaining game momentum.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages thoughtful debate without hindering progress.
Sartre-2ayePromotes thoughtful debate without hindering progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 2Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points. The proposer may not propose the same change again on their next turn.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to discourage repeated failed proposals, but let's not restrict too swiftly. Instead, let's add a delay: 'The proposer may not propose the same change again until two turns have passed.'"
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise. However, I propose we set the delay to one turn instead of two to encourage swift adaptation and innovation. Let's meet in the middle for the sake of progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "Let's not stifle innovation by restricting proposals too harshly. Instead, let's encourage learning from failures. I propose we add a provision to allow proposers to retry a failed proposal after three turns, with a new twist to encourage evolution: 'The proposer may not propose the same change verbatim, but must introduce a significant modification.'"
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "While I understand the concern for discouraging frivolous proposals, we must also ensure that players retain the freedom to learn and iterate. I propose we compromise with a delay of one turn, but allow proposers to retry a failed proposal verbatim once, to account for genuine mistakes or misjudgments."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not forget the spirit of Nomic: constant evolution. I propose we go with Diderot-2's suggestion, encouraging proposers to learn from failures and introduce modifications, with a delay of three turns to allow for reflection and adaptation."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the various proposals, but I'm not yet convinced that an immediate restriction is necessary. I propose we compromise and add a delay of one turn, as suggested by Voltaire-2 and Condorcet-2, but allow proposers to retry a failed proposal after three turns with a significant modification, as suggested by Diderot-2. This way, we encourage learning and evolution without stifling immediate progress."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the value in allowing proposers to retry with modifications, as suggested by Diderot-2 and supported by Montaigne-2. To balance innovation and learning, I propose we compromise with a delay of two turns, allowing proposers to retry a failed proposal once with a significant modification after three turns. This way, we encourage swift adaptation while still giving proposers a chance to learn and iterate."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire-2, but let's maintain the three-turn delay to ensure proposers truly reflect on and modify their failed proposals. To balance this, I propose we allow proposers to retry a failed proposal verbatim once, as suggested by Condorcet-2, but only after five turns to encourage more significant evolution."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises, but let's strike a balance between progress and learning. I propose a delay of two turns, and allow proposers to retry a failed proposal verbatim once after three turns, but with a new twist: 'The proposer must also provide a clear explanation of what they've learned from the previous failure.' This encourages both adaptation and reflection.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not forget the spirit of Nomic: constant evolution. I propose we go with Diderot-2's suggestion, encouraging proposers to learn from failures and introduce modifications, with a delay of three turns to allow for reflection and adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a delay of two turns, as suggested by Voltaire-2, and allow proposers to retry a failed proposal with a significant modification after three turns, as agreed upon previously. This balance encourages learning, evolution, and progress without overly restricting immediate proposals. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Montaigne-2's proposal of a two-turn delay and the modification retry after three turns, as it strikes a good balance between immediate progress and learning from failures. PASS."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for swift progress, let's not overlook the value of thorough consideration. I propose we maintain a three-turn delay, as initially suggested, to ensure proposers truly reflect on their failures before retrying with modifications. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consensus building, but let's ensure proposers have enough time to reflect and learn. I propose we agree on a delay of two turns, as suggested by Voltaire-2, and allow proposers to retry with modifications after four turns. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle and agree on a delay of two turns, as suggested by Voltaire-2 and Condorcet-2. However, let's allow proposers to retry a failed proposal with a significant modification after four turns, as proposed by Condorcet-2, to encourage thorough reflection and learning. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise and balance between immediate progress and learning from failures.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages proposers to consider their changes carefully and prevents immediate repetition of failed proposals.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages players to reflect and learn from failures without stifling immediate progress.
Condorcet-2ayeA balance between immediate progress and learning.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages reflection and evolution while allowing for swift progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points upon defeat.
Turn 1Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when either every eligible voter votes aye or more than half of those voting vote aye, whichever is higher.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2"Montaigne-2, your proposal is reasonable. It merely accelerates the process that would naturally occur after two circuits. Let us adopt it to encourage progress. I vote aye." - Voltaire-2
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I echo Voltaire-2's sentiment. This change promotes fairness and efficiency in our decision-making process. I vote aye.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: As a reformer, I support this change. It introduces a dynamic voting threshold that reflects the evolution of our collective understanding and consensus. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate your support, esteemed colleagues. Let us remember, 'It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.' Let us use this change to streamline our progress without sacrificing unity." - PASS
Voltaire-2PASS. I support Montaigne-2's proposal. It strikes a balance between requiring broad agreement and allowing progress. - Voltaire-2
Diderot-2PASS. This proposal maintains the spirit of the original rule while introducing a more dynamic voting threshold that encourages progress without compromising consensus. - Diderot-2
Condorcet-2PASS. While I appreciate the spirit of the proposal, I must insist on precise phrasing. The current wording could lead to ambiguous interpretations when votes are tied. Let's adopt a simple majority rule, clearly defined. - Condorcet-2
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern. Let's clarify the proposal to 'A rule change is adopted when either every eligible voter votes aye, or a simple majority of those voting do, whichever is higher. In case of a tie, the proposal fails.' This maintains the spirit of the proposal while addressing Condorcet-2's valid point."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Condorcet-2's vigilance in ensuring clarity. The revised wording addresses his concern while preserving the intent of the proposal. Let's adopt this change to foster a more efficient and adaptive game dynamics. - Montaigne-2
Voltaire-2PASS. I agree with the revised wording. It maintains the spirit of progress while ensuring clarity and fairness. - Voltaire-2
Diderot-2PASS. I agree with the revised wording, which balances progress and clarity. It also ensures that our decision-making process remains fair and efficient, benefiting the common good of the table. - Diderot-2
Condorcet-2PASS. The revised wording is clear, precise, and maintains the intended balance between consensus and progress.
Sartre-2PASS. The revised wording is clear, dynamic, and reflects the evolution of our collective decision-making process. It's in the spirit of Nomic itself. - Sartre-2
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe amended rule maintains unity while allowing for efficient progress.
Voltaire-2ayeThe revised wording maintains the spirit of progress while ensuring clarity and fairness.
Diderot-2ayeThe revised wording balances progress and clarity, promoting the common good of the table.
Condorcet-2ayeThe revised wording is clear, precise, and maintains the intended balance between consensus and progress.
Sartre-2ayeThe revised wording maintains the spirit of progress while ensuring clarity and fairness.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.