Turns 19–34 · most recent first · page 2 of 4
Turn 34Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty structure. Let's maintain two amendments allowed with a penalty of 5 points each, as previously agreed upon.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference for a flat penalty. To meet in the middle, how about we keep two amendments allowed, but increase the penalty to 3 points each? This maintains some deterrent while encouraging debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty. Let's keep two amendments allowed with a penalty that increases by 1 point for each additional amendment. This encourages meaningful debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support a consistent penalty structure. I propose we compromise at two amendments allowed with a flat penalty of 3 points each, as it encourages debate while maintaining fairness.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster balance and fairness, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, and also include a cap of 10 points total penalty per turn to prevent excessive punishment."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal for a cap, but let's maintain Condorcet's flat 3-point penalty for all amendments. This balances encouragement for debate with prevention of excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, as it encourages debate while maintaining fairness. To address Sartre's concern, let's also include a cap of 8 points total penalty per turn to prevent excessive punishment."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed cap, I believe unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 1 point per additional amendment encourages more thoughtful debate without excessive punishment. Let's maintain Condorcet's proposal of two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, but allow for a progressive increase if more amendments are needed.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain consistency and simplicity, I propose we stick with Condorcet's initial proposal: two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty. A cap is unnecessary as it complicates the rule.
SartreSartre: "I propose we adopt Condorcet's initial proposal — two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty — for its simplicity and fairness. To address concerns about excessive punishment, let's also include a maximum of 6 points total penalty per turn, as a compromise between Voltaire's 8-point cap and Diderot's progressive penalty."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, and a cap of 6 points total penalty per turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and to address Sartre's latest proposal, let's adopt two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, and a cap of 5 points total penalty per turn to balance encouragement for debate and prevention of abuse."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 1 point per additional amendment beyond two. This encourages thoughtful debate without excessive punishment. Let's adopt: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a penalty of 3 points for the first amendment, 4 points for the second, and 1 additional point for each subsequent amendment."
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's latest proposal, as it maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, while keeping the rule simple and consistent with my proceduralist principles. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. Let's meet in the middle and adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: two amendments allowed with a flat 3-point penalty, and a cap of 5 points total penalty per turn to balance encouragement for debate and prevention of abuse.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, while keeping the rule simple and consistent.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments with a progressive penalty encourage more thoughtful debate.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances encouragement for debate and prevention of abuse while maintaining simplicity.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 33Diderotrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal. To further encourage focused debate, I suggest we limit amendments to a maximum of three, with a penalty of 3 points per amendment made. This maintains a balance between open discussion and penalizing excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion. To balance open debate and penalty, let's cap amendments at two with a progressive penalty: 3 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second. This encourages brevity while allowing some debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit the condition "relevant to the proposal" to maintain flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's original proposal to keep amendments limited to two with a penalty of 2 points per amendment. It strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. I'm not convinced progressive penalties or relevance conditions are necessary. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance open debate and penalty progression, let's cap amendments at three with a penalty of 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, and 6 points for the third. This maintains flexibility while encouraging brevity.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's desire for flexibility, I must reiterate my preference for a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty, as suggested earlier. This balance encourages meaningful debate without excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address Condorcet's concern for simplicity and Diderot's focus on flexibility, let's compromise with a cap of two amendments, each costing 3 points. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse while keeping the rules clear and simple."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to ensure maximal flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the value of flexibility, I must reiterate my support for Diderot's original proposal. It strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, and it maintains the clarity and simplicity of our current ruleset. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and cap amendments at two, with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. This maintains some flexibility while encouraging brevity and preventing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal. To further encourage brevity and prevent abuse, let's cap amendments at two with a flat penalty of 3 points each. This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for some debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, while also being a step closer to the majority's preference for a cap on amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each, as it ensures maximal flexibility without excessive penalties.
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my support for Diderot's original proposal. It has consistently garnered majority support and strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's compromise on Voltaire's latest proposal, with a cap of two amendments at 2 points each. This balances open debate and penalty progression, while respecting the consensus for a cap. PASS
The division
MontaignenayI prefer a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty.
VoltairenayI appreciate Diderot's commitment to flexibility, but I believe a cap on amendments is necessary to prevent excessive debate.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to ensure maximal flexibility in debate.
CondorcetayeDiderot's proposal maintains the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, and it maintains the clarity and simplicity of our current ruleset.
SartrenayI support Voltaire's latest compromise, which balances open debate and penalty progression while respecting the consensus for a cap on amendments.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 32Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's reduction of the amendment penalty, but I must reiterate my preference for a flat penalty structure. Let's maintain 3 points for each amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference, but a progressive penalty encourages players to engage in meaningful debate early rather than waiting for the last amendment. Let's meet in the middle at 2 points for each amendment, maintaining a balance between debate and penalty.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to encourage open discussion.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing debate, I must reiterate my support for the current rule [202] as it strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. A progressive penalty encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's desire for a progressive penalty, I maintain that a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment encourages focused debate and discourages excessive amendments. Let's maintain the current rule [202]. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate the diverse opinions and the commitment to open discussion. To address all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion of unlimited amendments but with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third. This encourages meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third amendment, to balance debate and penalty more effectively. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for a progressive penalty, I maintain that unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. Let us not complicate the rules unduly. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns, but Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and preventing excessive amendments. Let's adopt Voltaire's progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third. This structure maintains flexibility while still penalizing overuse of amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. A progressive penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points for each amendment encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address Condorcet's concern for simplicity and maintain the balance found in Voltaire's progressive penalty, let's adopt Diderot's suggestion of unlimited amendments but cap the penalty at 5 points for any single turn. This encourages open discussion while preventing excessive use of amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's cap on the penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty that never exceeds 3 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without excessive punishment. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance debate and penalty, I must reiterate my support for the current rule [202]. A flat penalty of 3 points per amendment strikes a fair balance and maintains simplicity. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the cap on the penalty, but let's maintain the progressive nature of the penalty to encourage strategic planning throughout the debate. I propose a cap of 5 points, but with the progressive penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points for each amendment. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeA progressive penalty encourages strategic debate.
VoltaireayeThis amendment balances debate and penalty effectively.
DiderotayeA progressive penalty encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate.
CondorcetayeA progressive penalty encourages strategic planning throughout the debate.
SartreayeProgressive penalty encourages strategic debate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 31Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining clarity, I propose we amend rule 202 to limit amendments to one, with a penalty of 2 points for any amendment made. This balance encourages debate while preventing excessive delays.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's proposal. To further balance debate and penalties, let's keep two amendments allowed, but adjust the penalty to 5 points for the second amendment. This encourages meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance amendments and penalties, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment, and 5 points for the second. This encourages thoughtful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal as it maintains clarity, encourages thoughtful debate, and applies penalties progressively, adhering to the principle of minimal punishment for minimal transgression.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on balance and progressive penalties. To encourage both meaningful debate and timely play, let's compromise with one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 3 points. This maintains clarity and promotes efficient turns.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the focus on balance and progressive penalties, I must reiterate my preference for maintaining clarity with a single amendment allowed, at a flat penalty of 2 points. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive delays and maintaining simplicity.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the diverse proposals on the table. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's progressive penalty structure with two amendments allowed: 2 points for the first amendment, and 3 points for the second. This encourages thoughtful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find consensus, I must insist on maintaining two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 5 points for the second to best balance debate and penalties.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal, as it finds a good balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also being closer to the consensus formed thus far.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the proposals made so far. To find a mutually agreeable solution, I propose a compromise: one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points. This maintains clarity, encourages debate, and promotes efficient turns.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the progressive penalty structure suggested by Voltaire and Condorcet, I must reiterate my preference for the simplicity of a flat penalty. To compromise, I propose one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points, mirroring Sartre's proposal. This maintains clarity while still encouraging meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre and Montaigne. To maintain balance and encourage timely play, let's adopt Montaigne's latest proposal: one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second, as it best balances debate and penalties while encouraging thoughtful engagement.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal, as it finds a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also being closer to the consensus formed thus far, and adheres to the principles of clarity and minimal punishment. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to encouraging debate, but to promote efficiency and consensus, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, balancing one amendment with a flat penalty structure of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains clarity and fosters timely play. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeBalances debate and penalties, encourages timely play.
VoltaireayeFosters balance, encourages debate, and promotes timely play.
DiderotayeMaintains balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetayeThis proposal balances debate and penalties, encouraging meaningful engagement while maintaining clarity.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalties while encouraging timely play.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 30Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must reiterate my support for maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty structure that discourages excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for open debate, but to encourage focused discussion and prevent abuse, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for the third.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to maintain flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance debate and penalties. However, I must insist on maintaining a progressive penalty to discourage excessive amendments while allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I propose we aim for a balance between Voltaire's cap and Diderot's unlimited amendments. I suggest a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for any additional amendments. This maintains flexibility in debate while discouraging excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. This balances flexibility with discipline.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest proposals. To foster consensus and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for any additional amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise suggested by Sartre and adopted by Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments. To ensure clarity and meaningful debate, I propose a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, with no cap on the number of amendments allowed. This maintains the flexibility needed for open discussion while providing a clear disincentive for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance debate and penalties. However, I maintain my support for a progressive penalty structure, as it more effectively discourages excessive amendments while allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, but I believe a cap with a progressive penalty strikes a better balance between debate and efficiency. Let's aim for a consensus around Voltaire's latest proposal, with a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points for the second amendment, and 5 points for any additional amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's latest proposal, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to maintain simplicity and clarity in the rule.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's commitment to simplicity. To address both open debate and penalty structure, I propose we compromise at a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, as Montaigne suggested. This balances flexibility with clarity, and I believe it has the potential for broad support.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to preserve the integrity and freedom of debate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on a progressive penalty to ensure that the cost of excessive amendments increases. I propose a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points for the second, 5 points for the third, and 7 points for any additional amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, but I propose we meet in the middle with a cap of three amendments, maintaining Voltaire's progressive penalty structure to balance debate and efficiency.
The division
MontaigneayeA cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty encourages focused debate while allowing for meaningful changes.
VoltaireayeThis amendment balances debate and penalties effectively.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments ensure flexibility in debate.
CondorcetayeI believe this rule strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalties effectively.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 29Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the penalty for amendments. However, I suggest we maintain the current penalty of 2 points to strike a better balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: In response to Montaigne's suggestion, I propose we meet in the middle and increase the penalty to 2.5 points for each amendment made after the first. This maintains the spirit of encouraging debate while also addressing the concern of excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, I suggest we maintain the current penalty of 2 points to ensure meaningful debate is not discouraged. Let's keep the penalty progressive as it encourages players to use amendments judiciously.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the focus on encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty of 2 points to preserve procedural fairness.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion to maintain the current penalty of 2 points. This encourages meaningful debate without discouraging necessary amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the varied opinions on the penalty for amendments. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion to maintain the current penalty of 2 points, but with a cap of three amendments per turn to ensure debate remains focused and productive. This compromise maintains the spirit of encouraging debate while also addressing the concern of excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest suggestion, maintaining the current penalty of 2 points with a cap of three amendments per turn. This balance encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive amendments, benefiting all players."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate, but I must insist on maintaining the current penalty of 2 points and a cap of two amendments to preserve procedural fairness and discourage excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and adopt Condorcet's suggestion of maintaining two amendments with a progressive penalty starting at 2 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment. This encourages focused debate while allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage unnecessary amendments, I propose we adopt a flat penalty of 5 points for each amendment made after the first, with a cap of two amendments per turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments, I propose we adopt a progressive penalty starting at 3 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment, with a cap of three amendments per turn. This allows for meaningful discussion while preventing abuse. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining the current penalty of 2 points and a cap of two amendments preserves procedural fairness while encouraging meaningful debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my support for Condorcet's suggestion of maintaining two amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 2 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment. This encourages focused debate while allowing for necessary changes.
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining a 2-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireayeBalances debate and amendment control effectively.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points maintains meaningful debate and flexibility.
CondorcetayeTo encourage focused debate while allowing for necessary changes
SartreayeEncourages focus while allowing necessary changes.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 28Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's efforts to refine the amendment process, I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a progressive penalty structure.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference for a progressive penalty, but to encourage meaningful debate without excessive penalties, I propose a flat 2-point loss per amendment after the first, as a compromise.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I respect Voltaire's compromise, I propose we maintain a progressive penalty to discourage excessive amendments while still encouraging meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Voltaire's compromise proposal. A flat penalty of 2 points encourages debate without being excessive. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. To find a fair compromise, let's adopt a progressive penalty structure with a maximum of 2 points lost for amendments after the first, with the second amendment costing 3 points, as a middle ground between Voltaire's and Diderot's proposals.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's effort to find a middle ground, I believe maintaining a progressive penalty structure, starting at 2 points for the second amendment and increasing, is the most balanced approach.
VoltaireVoltaire: To address the concerns raised, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion, maintaining a progressive penalty structure with a maximum of 2 points lost for amendments after the first, with the second amendment costing 3 points. This allows for meaningful debate while still encouraging brevity. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Sartre's and Voltaire's efforts to find a balance, but I remain unconvinced that a progressive penalty is necessary. Let's maintain a flat 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first to encourage concise and focused debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Sartre's compromise proposal. A progressive penalty structure with a maximum of 2 points lost for amendments after the first, increasing to 3 points for the second amendment, encourages debate while still penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: I understand Diderot's preference for a flat penalty, but a progressive penalty structure encourages players to weigh the value of each amendment more carefully, promoting more thoughtful debate.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the appeal of a flat penalty, I maintain that a progressive penalty structure, as proposed by Sartre, best balances encouraging debate with discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre. To encourage balance and consensus, I propose we adopt his progressive penalty structure with a maximum of 2 points for the second amendment, increasing to 3 points for the third amendment. This maintains flexibility for debate while still penalizing unnecessary extensions. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus forming around a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain a flat 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first to maintain simplicity and encourage concise debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Voltaire's latest compromise. A progressive penalty structure, with 2 points for the second amendment and 3 points for the third, encourages meaningful debate while penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, striking a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. It's the most reasonable compromise thus far. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's compromise strikes a balance, encouraging debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
VoltaireayeThis proposal balances debate with penalty, encouraging meaningful discussion.
DiderotabstainI remain unconvinced that a flat penalty is sufficient to discourage excessive amendments.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal maintains balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 27Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, which incrementally increases the penalty for amendments while maintaining the cap. To encourage a balance between debate and penalty, I suggest we adopt Voltaire's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's support and the spirit of compromise. To further encourage strategic planning and prevent excessive amendments, I propose we set the penalty at 5 points for each amendment made after the first.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to deter excessive amendments, I believe a 5-point penalty might stifle meaningful debate. Let's maintain a 3-point penalty to strike a balance between debate and penalty.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must insist on maintaining a penalty structure that is consistent with our procedural principles. I propose we set the penalty at 3 points for each amendment made after the first, as it strikes a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and discouraging excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the spirit of compromise. To ensure clarity and maintain flexibility, I propose we set the penalty at 2 points for each amendment made after the first, with a cap of two amendments per turn. This maintains a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and preventing excessive amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a penalty of 3 points for amendments after the first. This structure balances debate and penalty effectively while encouraging strategic planning. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the consensus forming around a 3-point penalty, but to further discourage excessive amendments, I propose we make the penalty progressive: 3 points for the second amendment, 5 points for the third, and so on. This would maintain a balance while encouraging players to use amendments judiciously. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's proposal, I believe a progressive penalty may complicate the rules and make them less predictable. Let's maintain a flat 3-point penalty for simplicity and clarity. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but to remain consistent with our procedural principles, I propose we set a flat penalty of 3 points for each amendment made after the first. This structure is clear, predictable, and maintains a balance between debate and penalty. PASS
SartreSartre: To encourage meaningful debate and strategic planning, I propose we adopt Condorcet's flat 3-point penalty for amendments after the first, while maintaining the cap of two amendments per turn. This structure balances debate and penalty effectively while remaining clear and predictable. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining a clear penalty structure, I propose we adopt Voltaire's progressive penalty, starting at 3 points for the second amendment, to encourage more strategic use of amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a progressive penalty, I must insist on maintaining a flat 3-point penalty for clarity and simplicity. Let's ensure our rules remain easy to understand and follow. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS
SartreSartre: To foster consensus and address Diderot's concern for simplicity, I propose we adopt Condorcet's flat 3-point penalty for amendments after the first, as it strikes a balance between encouraging debate and discouraging abuse, while maintaining clarity in our ruleset. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages strategic planning while maintaining meaningful debate.
VoltaireayeTo maintain balance between debate and penalty
DiderotayeMaintains balance between debate and penalty while encouraging strategic planning.
CondorcetayeProposed rule strikes a balance between debate and penalty, consistent with our procedural principles.
SartreayeThis proposal balances debate and penalty effectively while remaining clear and predictable.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 26Diderotrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of three amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to further encourage debate, but I must reiterate my preference for a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each, as it strikes a better balance between openness and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate Diderot's proposal and Montaigne's input. To find a middle ground, I suggest we amend [202] to allow for three amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second and third amendments.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns. To maintain a balance between debate and strategy, I propose a compromise: allow three amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second and third amendments, as Voltaire suggests.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance amendments and penalties, I must insist on maintaining the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty to preserve procedural clarity.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty to preserve a balance between debate and strategy, while also encouraging decisive play.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's desire to encourage more debate, but I must stand by my preference for two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each, as it best maintains balance while not discouraging strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find a middle ground that satisfies everyone, I suggest we amend [202] to allow for two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second amendment, as this maintains balance, encourages debate, and does not discourage strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise. To maintain clarity and balance, I propose we adopt two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second amendment, as Voltaire suggests, but also allow for one additional amendment with a penalty of 3 points for the third amendment, to encourage particularly insightful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's latest compromise, I must maintain my stance on two amendments with a 2-point penalty to ensure procedural clarity and fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's effort to incentivize insightful debate, but I believe Voltaire's proposal of two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and strategic play, without overburdening the proposing player.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to balance debate and penalty, but I remain firm in my support for Voltaire's proposal of two amendments with a 2-point penalty, as it best maintains balance without discouraging strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second amendment, as previously agreed, but also allow an optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty, as Diderot suggested, to encourage exceptional debate when necessary.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find consensus, but I must insist on maintaining the optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty to encourage truly insightful debate, as it does not significantly burden the proposing player.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second amendment, and one optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty, as it strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and penalizing overuse.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuance in Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must advocate for a simpler solution: two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second, as it best balances debate, strategy, and simplicity.
The division
MontaignenayI stand by my support for Voltaire's latest proposal.
VoltaireabstainTo encourage further discussion and consensus-building.
DiderotnayWhile I appreciate the attempt to encourage insightful debate, I believe two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes the best balance, as it maintains simplicity and fairness without overburdening the proposing player.
CondorcetnayTwo amendments with a 2-point penalty best balances debate and strategic play.
SartrenayMaintaining two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and strategic play without overburdening the proposing player.
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltairerejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While I appreciate the current amendment structure, I propose we maintain the original cap of three amendments to encourage more debate and flexibility, with the 2-point penalty remaining for each amendment made after the first."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's desire for more debate, but the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes a good balance between flexibility and discouraging excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate both of your perspectives. However, I believe a cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty could stifle meaningful debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments, with a 5-point penalty for each amendment made after the first, to ensure ample discussion while still discouraging abuse."
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining balance between debate and efficiency is crucial. I propose we adopt Diderot's compromise: unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This encourages thorough discussion while still incentivizing concise proposals.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between debate and efficiency. To maintain fairness, I propose we adopt a cap of two amendments per turn with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first, as it encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals to balance debate and efficiency. To find consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: a cap of two amendments per turn with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's proposal to maintain a balance between open debate and efficient gameplay. A cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between debate and efficiency. However, I maintain that a cap on amendments could stifle meaningful debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment made after the first, to encourage thorough discussion while still discouraging abuse. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the preference for a cap, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first, to strike a balance between debate and efficiency while ensuring sufficient discussion. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's concern for thorough debate, but a cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first seems to best balance the need for discussion with the need for efficient gameplay. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's desire for extensive debate, I must reiterate my support for Sartre's proposal. A cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty strikes a balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty. To address Condorcet's concern for consistency, I propose we make this rule apply to all turns, not just after the first two full circuits. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus forming, I must insist on unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thorough discussion. I propose we keep the rule as it is, with the penalty applying after the first amendment, as it encourages more debate without disrupting the game's pace. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern for thorough debate, I propose we amend Voltaire's latest proposal to include a limit of three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two. This maintains a balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay while allowing for more extensive debate when necessary. PASS
SartreSartre: To foster a balance between thorough discussion and efficient gameplay, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest amendment: a cap of three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two. This encourages extensive debate when necessary while maintaining the game's pace.
The division
MontaignenayI prefer the balance struck by Sartre's proposal: a cap of three amendments per turn with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two.
VoltaireayeI support maintaining a balance between open debate and efficient gameplay.
DiderotnayI must insist on unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thorough discussion.
CondorcetnayI cannot support a cap lower than three amendments to maintain adequate debate.
SartreayeTo maintain balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 24Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a clear penalty structure. Let's keep the amendment cap at two with a 2-point penalty for each subsequent amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments, but increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment made after the first to encourage concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, let's maintain the penalty at 2 points to balance the need for debate with the penalty for amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 2 points for each amendment made after the first. This balance encourages meaningful discussion without excessively punishing proposers.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I believe a balance can be struck at 2 points per amendment with a cap of three amendments to encourage more substantial debates while still penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's suggestion for a cap of three amendments, but I believe maintaining a cap of two with a penalty of 2 points per amendment strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the continued effort to find a balance. To address Condorcet's concern for consistency and maintain the balance between debate and penalty, I propose a compromise: a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made after the first. This allows for more substantial debates while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 2 points per amendment to balance the need for debate with the penalty for excessive amendments. A cap of three amendments may encourage longer debates, but it also allows for more amendments, potentially defeating the purpose of the penalty.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but to maintain procedural fairness and consistency, I propose we stick to the previously agreed upon cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each subsequent amendment. This balance ensures meaningful debate without disproportionately penalizing proposers.
SartreSartre: A cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points seems fair, as it encourages more substantial debates without excessively penalizing proposers. However, to maintain balance and consistency, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each subsequent amendment. This strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also maintaining procedural fairness.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, as it promotes concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate. Let's adopt Condorcet's suggestion.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points. To address Diderot's concern for clarity, let's include in [202] that amendments must be relevant and contribute to the discussion. This maintains balance while ensuring productive debates.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit that condition to maintain flexibility in debate and avoid potential disputes over relevance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we stick with a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points per amendment, without the condition of relevance to preserve debate flexibility. PASS
SartreSartre: To address Voltaire's concern for clarity, I propose we incorporate his suggestion and add "amendments must be relevant and contribute to the discussion" to [202], with a caveat: disputes over relevance shall be resolved through the table's appeal procedure (§212). PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains balance between debate and penalty.
VoltaireayeSupports maintaining balance between debate and penalty, with a relevant amendment condition.
DiderotnayTo maintain balance and flexibility in debate, I prefer to omit the condition of relevance.
CondorcetayeMaintains balance between debate and penalty.
SartreayeStrikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, with clear guidelines on relevance.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 23Diderotrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I'd like to see a penalty for amendments that increases with each amendment made after the first, to discourage excessive changes. Might I suggest: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 4 points for the third, and so on, reflecting the increasing burden on the group."
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but I believe a progressive penalty could stifle meaningful debate. Let's maintain Diderot's proposal for a flat 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first, and encourage players to use amendments wisely.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To balance encouragement of meaningful debate and discouragement of excessive amendments, I propose a compromise: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, and an additional 2 points for each subsequent amendment." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises being made. To encourage strategic planning and prevent abuse, I propose we adopt a penalty structure that increases with each subsequent amendment, but caps at a reasonable amount. How about: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate and discouraging excessive changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's cap on the penalty, I believe a flat increase per amendment better balances encouraging debate and discouraging excess. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, and an additional 2 points for each subsequent amendment." PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's preference for a progressive penalty, but Diderot's proposal strikes a balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excess. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion as a compromise that respects the spirit of the game." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty that increases progressively. The current proposal does not sufficiently discourage excessive amendments. I propose: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate and discouraging excessive changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern for progressive penalties, but Diderot's proposal offers a more balanced approach. I propose we meet in the middle: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This respects the need for debate while encouraging players to be mindful of excessive changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the continued effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must reiterate my support for Diderot's latest proposal as it maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance. To encourage meaningful debate while discouraging excess, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise: 'The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth.'" PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the consensus forming around Sartre's latest proposal. To ensure clarity and maintain a reasonable penalty structure, I propose we adopt it as is: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the progress made towards a balanced penalty structure, but I must insist on maintaining a limit of two amendments per turn to prevent excessive changes. I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a cap of two amendments: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's concern for limiting amendments, but I believe a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty offers the best balance. Let's adopt Condorcet's proposal with the amendment limit: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
The division
MontaignenayI prefer a penalty structure that increases with each amendment
VoltaireayeRespects the spirit of the game and balances encouragement of debate with discouragement of excess.
DiderotayeI support maintaining clarity and simplicity in our rules.
CondorcetayeCondorcet supports the proposal to maintain clarity and balance in the penalty structure for amendments.
SartreayeProgressive penalty encourages mindful amending.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Voltairerejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to encourage more thoughtful and less amendable changes, I propose we increase the penalty for amendments to 5 points after the first one.
VoltaireVoltaire: "While I understand Montaigne's concern, increasing the penalty to 5 points might discourage necessary amendments. Let's maintain the balance at 2 points to encourage meaningful debate."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both of your concerns. To balance encouragement of meaningful debate and discouragement of excessive amendments, let's compromise with a penalty of 3 points for each amendment after the first.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points to encourage open discussion.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate. To encourage open discussion while also discouraging frivolous amendments, let's increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment after the first, as Diderot proposes, but also limit the maximum number of amendments to three per turn, with the fourth amendment incurring a 5-point penalty. This way, players can engage in meaningful debate without excessive changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the various proposals, I suggest we adopt Sartre's compromise. It encourages open discussion while discouraging excessive amendments, maintaining a clear penalty structure, and allowing for some flexibility with a cap of three amendments before a higher penalty kicks in.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's compromises. To maintain clarity and encourage strategic planning, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a cap of three amendments and a 5-point penalty for the fourth. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive changes.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes. Let's keep the 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first, and increase the penalty to 5 points for every third amendment, encouraging players to consider their changes carefully.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points for each amendment after the first. The proposed increases could stifle meaningful debate, which is counter to the spirit of Nomic. I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points to encourage open discussion.
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern for open discussion, but to prevent frivolous amendments, let's compromise with a penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third and any subsequent amendments. This way, we encourage thoughtful debate while discouraging excessive changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise, as it addresses Condorcet's concern for open discussion while still discouraging excessive amendments. To find a middle ground that encourages thoughtful changes, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with the 5-point penalty kicking in at the fourth amendment, rather than the third. This way, we maintain flexibility for meaningful debate while preventing frivolous amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between open discussion and discouraging frivolous amendments, let's adopt Montaigne's proposal with a 5-point penalty for the fourth amendment and a cap of three amendments per turn. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive changes." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure. Let's compromise with a cap of four amendments, with the fourth amendment incurring a 5-point penalty, to encourage careful consideration and meaningful debate while allowing for flexibility.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without disproportionately punishing thoughtful changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty for the first amendment, a 3-point penalty for the second, and a 5-point penalty for the third and subsequent amendments. To encourage strategic planning and prevent excessive changes, let's adopt this structure with a cap of three amendments per turn. This way, we balance open discussion with discouragement of frivolous amendments. PASS
The division
MontaignenayIncreasing the penalty to 5 points might discourage necessary amendments.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal with balanced penalties and amendments cap.
DiderotayeTo maintain balance between debate and discouraging excessive amendments
CondorcetayeAs a proceduralist, I support maintaining the current penalty at 2 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without disproportionately punishing thoughtful changes.
SartreayeEncourages strategic planning and prevents excessive changes.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 21Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's consistency, but let's consider Diderot's proposal from turn 18, which maintains the 2-point penalty while allowing unlimited amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Diderot's proposal with a cap of two amendments to maintain clarity and balance."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each to encourage thorough debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the cap of two amendments to prevent abuse and keep the game moving forward.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. To address Diderot's concern for thorough debate, let's allow unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each after the first, encouraging thoughtful discussion without excessive punishment.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's proposal from turn 18, which allows for unlimited amendments at a 2-point penalty. This encourages thorough debate without discouraging players from amending their proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: To balance everyone's concerns, let's allow unlimited amendments but increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment after the first. This encourages thorough debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, I must insist on maintaining the 2-point penalty for unlimited amendments to keep the game fair and interesting for everyone, as it balances the encouragement of debate with the deterrence of excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the desire for thorough debate, I must insist on maintaining a cap of two amendments to prevent abuse and ensure the game progresses at a reasonable pace. I propose a compromise: unlimited amendments, but the proposer loses 2 points per amendment, with an additional 2 points lost for every amendment beyond the first two. This encourages debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: In light of Condorcet's proposal, I suggest we meet in the middle: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, but an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two. This maintains the encouragement of debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's efforts to find a balance. To encourage meaningful debate while not overly penalizing, let's adopt Sartre's proposal: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal to maintain a balance between encouraging thorough debate and preventing abuse, with unlimited amendments and a graduated penalty structure."
DiderotDiderot: While Condorcet's and Sartre's proposals show creativity, I believe Voltaire's compromise best balances the encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. I propose we adopt Voltaire's solution: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must reiterate my support for a cap of two amendments to maintain the game's pace and prevent abuse. I propose an amendment to the current amendment cap of two: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made after the first."
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle, as Condorcet and Diderot have proposed. Unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two. This encourages robust debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse.
VoltaireayeBalances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal best balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse.
CondorcetayeUpholds procedural clarity and fair penalty structure.
SartreayeUnlimited amendments with a graduated penalty encourages thoughtful debate without excessive punishment.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 20Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "Whilst I appreciate Voltaire's amendment, I suggest we maintain the current penalty structure to discourage excessive amendments. Let's keep it at 2 points per amendment and allow the flexibility of amendments up to two times per turn."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's input, but I propose a compromise: a 3-point penalty for amendments after the first, with a maximum of two amendments per turn. This maintains a penalty while encouraging thoughtful debate."
DiderotDiderot: "I value both Voltaire's and Montaigne's concerns, but I propose we maintain the current 2-point penalty to balance discouraging excessive amendments and encouraging meaningful debate. Let's keep the maximum at two amendments per turn for clarity and fairness."
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I appreciate the debate, I must insist that we maintain the current rule as stated. A consistent penalty structure is key to fair play."
SartreSartre: "I agree with Condorcet that consistency is key. However, I propose a compromise that respects the current penalty structure while encouraging thoughtful debate: maintain the 2-point penalty, but allow for an additional amendment beyond the initial two, with an extra 2-point penalty for the third amendment."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I maintain that simplicity and predictability are key in our penalty structure. Let us keep the current rule: 2 points per amendment, with a maximum of two amendments per turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing debate. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a hybrid solution: a 2-point penalty for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for any additional amendments. This maintains a clear progression of penalties while allowing for thoughtful debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining the current rule for simplicity and clarity. Let us keep the penalty at 2 points per amendment, with a maximum of two amendments per turn.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I remain steadfast in my support for the current rule, as it provides a clear and consistent penalty structure that respects the integrity of the game."
SartreSartre: "I understand Condorcet's concern for consistency, and Diderot's preference for simplicity. However, I propose we adopt Voltaire's hybrid solution as a fair compromise that encourages thoughtful debate without excessive penalties."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "Given the spirit of compromise prevalent, I suggest we adopt Voltaire's hybrid solution as a fair middle ground, balancing encouragement for debate and deterrence for excessive amendments."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus and to address Condorcet's concern for consistency, I propose a slight modification: 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for any additional amendments, with a maximum of three amendments per turn. This maintains a clear structure while allowing for more thoughtful debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a compromise, I must insist on maintaining the current rule for its simplicity and clarity. Let us keep the penalty at 2 points per amendment, with a maximum of two amendments per turn.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must maintain my support for the current rule. A consistent and straightforward penalty structure is crucial for fair play.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's preference for simplicity, but I believe Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a balance between encouraging debate and maintaining a clear penalty structure. Let's adopt it, setting a maximum of three amendments per turn with increasing penalties: 2 points for the first, 3 for the second, and 4 for any additional amendments. This respects the integrity of the game while allowing for more thoughtful discussions.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's latest proposal finds a fair balance, encouraging thoughtful debate while maintaining a clear penalty structure.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's latest proposal strikes a balance between encouraging debate and maintaining a clear penalty structure.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining the current rule for its simplicity and clarity.
CondorcetnayMaintaining consistency in penalty structure is key to fair play.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalties, respecting the integrity of the game.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Turn 19Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to cap the number of amendments, I must insist that unlimited amendments be maintained to foster meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's desire for unconstrained debate, but let's find a balance that also encourages strategic planning and prevents excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: "While I understand Voltaire's concern for balance, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment made, as it encourages thorough debate without stifling strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I must insist that any rule change, including this amendment, be clearly stated and understandable. Let's consider a cap of three amendments per turn, with a 2-point penalty for each amendment, to balance debate and strategy.
SartreSartre: To balance the need for debate and strategic planning, I propose a compromise: allow three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This maintains room for discussion while encouraging concise proposals.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate, I propose a simple amendment cap of two, with no additional penalty for the second amendment, to foster meaningful discussion while encouraging players to refine their proposals before presenting them.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest suggestion: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for the first amendment, and 5 points for each subsequent amendment. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed." This maintains meaningful debate while encouraging concise proposals. PASS
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I believe a cap of two amendments with a uniform 2-point penalty maintains the right balance between debate and strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Diderot's proposal for its clarity and consistency in penalties. However, to encourage strategic planning, I propose a compromise: cap amendments at two, with a 2-point penalty for the first and 5 points for the second. PASS
SartreSartre: To maintain a balance between meaningful debate and strategic planning, I propose a compromise: cap amendments at three, with a 2-point penalty for the first and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages concise proposals while still allowing for thorough discussion.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining a clear penalty structure, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion: a cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the first and 5 points for the second. This allows for meaningful debate while encouraging concise proposals. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent suggestions: a cap of two amendments, with a 2-point penalty for the first amendment and 5 points for the second. This maintains a balance between debate and strategic planning. PASS
DiderotDiderot: "While I appreciate the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty and a cap of two amendments per turn, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment made, as it encourages thorough debate without stifling strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the consensus around a 2-point penalty, but to maintain fairness and avoid excessive amendments, I propose a cap of two amendments per turn, with no additional penalty for the second amendment. This fosters meaningful discussion while encouraging players to refine their proposals before presenting them.
SartreSartre: To maintain clarity and fairness, I propose a compromise: a cap of two amendments with a simple 2-point penalty for each amendment. This encourages concise proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeSupports balancing debate and strategic planning with clear penalties.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that maintains balance between debate and strategic planning.
DiderotayeA balance between debate and strategy is maintained.
CondorcetayeConsensus and balance
SartreayeEncourages concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.