The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 8 points and being unable to propose again on their next turn.Reverting to a tried and tested penalty to maintain fairness and consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of learning and growth, I propose we reduce the penalty to a 6-point loss and allow proposers to remain in the game, but with a one-turn delay before they can propose again.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's focus on learning, a 6-point loss may not be sufficient to deter reckless proposals. I propose a compromise: a 7-point loss with a one-turn delay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the focus on learning, a one-turn delay may not provide enough time for proposers to reflect and adapt. I propose maintaining the two-turn delay to ensure thorough consideration.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance learning and deterrence, I propose a 7-point loss with a two-turn delay, as originally suggested by Diderot-2. This ensures proposers thoroughly consider their moves while still allowing them to re-engage swiftly.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the varied proposals, but let's find a balanced solution that both encourages learning and maintains a fair pace of play. I propose a 6-point loss with a one-turn delay, as suggested by Montaigne-2, but with an additional clause allowing proposers to revise their proposal once more during debate, with clear deadlines for each revision. This balances swift progress with continuous learning.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's nuanced proposal, but let's keep the revision limit at two to maintain focus and balance. I propose a 6-point loss with a one-turn delay, as suggested by Sartre-2, with the revision limit set at two.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their mistakes even after failure. I propose a 5-point loss with a one-turn delay and two revisions allowed during debate, with clear deadlines for each.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the focus on learning, I must insist on the two-turn delay to ensure proposers thoroughly consider their moves. Let's meet in the middle with a 6-point loss and two revisions allowed, with clear deadlines for each.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural clarity and balance, I propose a 6-point loss with a two-turn delay, and allow proposers to revise their proposal twice during debate, with clear deadlines. This ensures proposers thoroughly consider their moves while still allowing for swift re-engagement and learning.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance learning and fairness, I propose a 6-point loss with a one-turn delay, as previously suggested, and allow proposers to revise their proposal once more during debate, but with a firm deadline of one minute per revision to maintain a swift pace of play.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but let's find common ground. I propose a 6-point loss with a one-turn delay, as suggested by Sartre-2, with revisions limited to two, as originally proposed by me, to balance learning and focus."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the convergence around a 6-point loss and a one-turn delay, let's meet in the middle with a 5-point loss and maintain the two revisions allowed, with clear deadlines to ensure proposers have time to adapt their strategies.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for swift learning, I must insist on the two-turn delay to ensure proposers thoroughly consider their moves. Let's meet in the middle with a 6-point loss and two revisions allowed, with clear deadlines for each, to balance learning and thoroughness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness and learning, I propose a 6-point loss with a two-turn delay, and maintain the two revisions allowed, with clear deadlines set at one minute each. This preserves balance and encourages continuous adaptation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance learning and fairness, I propose a 6-point loss with a two-turn delay, and allow proposers to revise their proposal once more during debate, but with a firm deadline of one minute per revision to maintain a swift pace of play.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Prefer a two-turn delay to ensure thorough consideration. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Encourages learning and maintains balance. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Two-turn delay is crucial for thorough consideration. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Balances learning and deterrence effectively. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages learning and maintains a fair pace of play. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 is in force and requires Voltaire-2 to lose 8 points for proposing a defeated change.