The motion
To amend §206
A 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.Increasing the penalty for failed proposals encourages more careful consideration of rule changes.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Too harsh, discourages experimentation |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain balance between learning and experimentation, I propose we reduce the penalty to 12 points and maintain a three-turn cooldown. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Compromise proposal that balances deterrence and learning. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Consistency in penalty duration is crucial for fairness. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Too harsh on experimentation |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.