Turns 3–18 · most recent first · page 3 of 4
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.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to find a middle ground, but I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal to maintain the penalty at 5 points to discourage excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's compromise, and to meet in the middle, let's make the penalty for amendments 3 points. This encourages debate while still deterring excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's gesture, I must insist on maintaining a lower penalty of 2 points. This encourages meaningful debate without deterring necessary amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal for a penalty of 2 points. It strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I propose we compromise at a penalty of 2 points for amended proposals, and introduce a cap of two amendments per turn to maintain balance and discourage excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's suggestion, I believe Diderot's proposal of a 2-point penalty strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and discouraging frivolous amendments. Let's adopt rule 202 as amended by Diderot.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty, but to encourage strategic planning and prevent abuse, I propose we limit amendments to one per turn, as suggested by Sartre. Let's amend [202] to "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. The proposing player loses 2 points if the proposal is amended during the debate, with a maximum of one amendment allowed per turn."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's concern for abuse, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points. This ensures that meaningful debate can occur without restricting necessary adjustments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal with a cap of two amendments per turn, as suggested by Sartre, to maintain balance while still allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment with a cap of two amendments per turn, as previously suggested. This way, we strike a fair balance that accommodates necessary changes while discouraging abuse. PASS if no further amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's concern for abuse, I must side with Diderot and Condorcet in this instance. A cap of two amendments per turn, coupled with a 2-point penalty, strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing excessive amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty and a cap of two amendments per turn. To foster productive debate and discourage excessive changes, I propose we adopt the amended rule as suggested by Sartre and supported by Diderot, Condorcet, and now Montaigne. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points. This ensures that meaningful debate can occur without restricting necessary adjustments. However, I am willing to reconsider if an alternative solution is proposed that addresses the concerns of all players. PASS
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and maintain flexibility, let's introduce a new rule 401: "A player may propose up to two amendments per turn, with each amendment incurring a 1-point penalty." This way, we have unlimited amendments with a gradually increasing penalty to discourage excessive changes. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeA penalty of 2 points strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireayeBalances debate and deterrence, with a compromise on amendments.
DiderotayeStrikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
CondorcetayeSupports balanced penalty and amendment cap.
SartreayeCompromise between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points if their proposal is amended during debate.
Turn 17Voltairerejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one unamendable rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's reduction of the penalty for amendments, but I still believe a penalty of 5 points strikes a better balance between encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To meet halfway, I suggest we reduce the penalty to 4 points. This encourages unamended proposals while still allowing for debate."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to find a suitable penalty for amended proposals. However, I propose we maintain the current penalty of 5 points to strike a balance between encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's amendment, as it reduces the penalty for amendments while still encouraging unamended proposals.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but let's not overlook the spirit of Nomic — evolution and experimentation. I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion of a 4-point penalty, allowing for more amendment flexibility while still encouraging unamended proposals.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for flexibility, a penalty of 3 points might encourage too many amendments, hindering the spirit of Nomic as a game of strategy and foresight. I propose we maintain the penalty at 4 points, as it strikes a balance that encourages unamended proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: To compromise, let's meet in the middle at a penalty of 4 points, as proposed by Condorcet and Sartre. This balances encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I understand the desire to compromise, but a penalty of 4 points might not be enough to deter frequent amendments. I propose we maintain the current penalty at 5 points to better encourage unamended proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's latest proposal of a 4-point penalty, as it maintains a balance between encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate, while also taking into account the spirit of Nomic. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal of a 4-point penalty, as it balances encouraging unamended proposals with allowing meaningful debate, and fosters the spirit of experimentation that Nomic embodies. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the compromise, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal of a 4-point penalty, as it maintains a balance between encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: To address Diderot's concern, let's make the penalty for amendments 5 points when the proposal is amended twice or more, and 4 points for the first amendment. This maintains the balance while encouraging more debate.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand Voltaire's attempt to compromise, I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 5 points for any amendments to preserve the integrity of unamended proposals and strategic planning.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to accommodate Diderot's concern, but I maintain that a flat penalty of 4 points for any amendments best balances encouraging unamended proposals and allowing debate. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, with a tiered penalty of 4 points for the first amendment and 5 points for any subsequent amendments. This encourages unamended proposals while still allowing for substantial debate. PASS
The division
MontaignenayA penalty of 3 points may hinder strategic planning.
VoltaireayeEncourages unamended proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate.
DiderotnayThe penalty of 3 points may not be sufficient to discourage frequent amendments.
CondorcetnayA penalty of 3 points for amendments may be too lenient, encouraging excessive amendments and hindering the spirit of Nomic.
SartreayeEncourages unamended proposals while allowing substantial debate.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 16Voltairecarried
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 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to discourage amendments, but a 5-point penalty might stifle meaningful debate. Let's maintain the simplicity of a 3-point penalty as proposed earlier.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for maintaining debate, so I propose a compromise: a 4-point penalty for amended proposals. This should discourage excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful discussion. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but a 4-point penalty might still be too high. Let's keep the penalty at 3 points to maintain a balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging debate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate. However, a penalty for amendments risks penalizing legitimate debate. Instead, I propose we incentivize unamended proposals by granting an additional point for unamended victories, without any penalty for amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal to incentivize unamended proposals, but I believe a penalty for amendments is necessary to discourage strategic amendment. Let's meet in the middle: a 2-point penalty for amended proposals, and a 1-point bonus for unamended victories. This maintains balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging debate. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's effort to find a middle ground. However, a 2-point penalty might be too low to effectively discourage amendments. Let's increase it to 3 points, maintaining a balance between encouraging debate and deterring excessive amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for maintaining a balance. To encourage meaningful debate while still discouraging excessive amendments, let's compromise with a 3-point penalty for amended proposals and retain Sartre's 1-point bonus for unamended victories. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire to discourage amendments while encouraging debate. However, I propose a slight adjustment to Voltaire's latest proposal: a 2-point penalty for amended proposals and a 2-point bonus for unamended victories. This maintains the balance between discouraging amendments and incentivizing meaningful debate without being too harsh. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining a penalty for amended proposals to discourage strategic amendment. Let us compromise with a 2-point penalty and no bonus for unamended victories, to balance discouragement and encouragement of debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern for balance, but a 2-point penalty alone may not be enough to discourage strategic amendments. Let's increase it to 3 points, as proposed earlier, to maintain a stronger deterrent while still allowing for meaningful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal: a 3-point penalty for amended proposals and a 1-point bonus for unamended victories, as it strikes a fair balance between encouraging meaningful debate and discouraging excessive amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's steadfast support for my proposal. To address Condorcet's concern, let's compromise with a 2-point penalty for amended proposals and maintain the 1-point bonus for unamended victories. This way, we discourage strategic amendments while still encouraging meaningful debate. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I believe a penalty of 2 points for amended proposals and a bonus of 2 points for unamended victories maintains a better balance, encouraging meaningful debate without being too lenient or harsh. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, but I must insist on a penalty for amended proposals to discourage strategic amendment. Let's compromise with Voltaire's proposal: a 2-point penalty for amended proposals and a 1-point bonus for unamended victories. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns raised about maintaining meaningful debate while discouraging excessive amendments. Let's meet in the middle and adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a 2-point penalty for amended proposals and a 1-point bonus for unamended victories, as it strikes a fair balance between the two. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeA 2-point penalty and 1-point bonus for unamended victories strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireayeSupports balanced penalty and bonus for unamended victories.
DiderotayeMaintaining balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging debate.
CondorcetayeA penalty for amended proposals is necessary to discourage strategic amendment, and Voltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging meaningful debate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 5 points if the proposal is amended during the debate.
Turn 15Voltairerejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is adopted unamended, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is amended during the debate, no points are gained.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I suggest we maintain the existing rule [202] to encourage unamended proposals and foster clear debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for unamended proposals. To address this and foster clear debate, I propose we introduce a new rule [315]: "After a proposal is adopted unamended, the proposer gains double the points from the die roll." This encourages unamended proposals while still allowing for debate and amendment when necessary.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's efforts to balance clarity and debate. However, I propose we amend rule [202] as Voltaire suggests, but also introduce a penalty for amendments to discourage unnecessary changes. I propose a new rule [314]: "If a proposal is amended during the debate, the proposer loses 5 points." This maintains the spirit of the existing rule while allowing for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the proposed amendments, but I must insist on the clarity and simplicity of the current rule [202]. The existing rule already encourages unamended proposals by rewarding the proposer with points. Adding new rules to double points or introduce penalties for amendments could unnecessarily complicate the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but let's not overcomplicate our game. I propose we amend [202] as Voltaire suggests, and also make debate more productive by adding a new rule [316]: "During debate, only the proposer may amend their rule change. If another player proposes an amendment, it must be seconded by at least two other players to be considered." This maintains the spirit of debate while preventing frivolous amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the spirit of the proposals, but I must reiterate my support for the existing rule [202] to maintain simplicity and encourage unamended proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the various proposals. To find common ground, I suggest we adopt Diderot's penalty for amended proposals (rule 314) alongside my amended rule 202, as it maintains a balance between clarity, debate, and incentive for unamended proposals.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's suggestion to adopt both my penalty for amended proposals (rule 314) and his amended rule 202. However, to further encourage meaningful debate without stifling it, I propose we also adopt Sartre's rule 316, allowing only the proposer to amend and requiring seconding for others' amendments. This way, we maintain a balance between clarity, debate, and incentive for unamended proposals.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for balance, adding new rules for penalties or doubling points risks overcomplicating the game. I maintain my support for the simplicity and clarity of the existing rule 202.
SartreSartre: I agree with Diderot's compromise. Let's adopt Voltaire's amended [202], Diderot's penalty for amendments (rule 314), and Sartre's rule for productive debate (rule 316). This balances clarity, debate, and incentives for unamended proposals without overcomplicating the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposed balance, but I remain unconvinced. Let's maintain the simplicity of the existing rule 202 and encourage unamended proposals through voluntary consensus, not penalties. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference for simplicity, but I believe Diderot's penalty for amendments (rule 314) and Sartre's rule for productive debate (rule 316) strike a good balance between encouraging unamended proposals and allowing meaningful debate. To address Montaigne's concern, let's set the penalty for amended proposals to 3 points, reducing its impact while still discouraging unnecessary amendments. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand Voltaire's concern for balance, but let's keep the penalty at 5 points to maintain a strong incentive for unamended proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concern for simplicity, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Voltaire's amended [202], Diderot's penalty (rule 314), and my rule for productive debate (rule 316) offer a balanced approach that maintains the spirit of the game. Let's give it a try and revisit if necessary. PASS
The division
MontaignenayPrefer the simplicity of the existing rule 202.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that balances clarity, debate, and incentives for unamended proposals.
DiderotayeBalances clarity, debate, and incentives for unamended proposals.
CondorcetnayAdding complexity without clear benefit.
SartreayeBalanced approach that encourages unamended proposals and productive debate.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 14Voltairerejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to incentivize unamended proposals, but I propose a slight revision: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points." This maintains the incentive without the penalty, fostering a more collaborative spirit.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's spirit of collaboration. To encourage unamended proposals while maintaining fairness, I propose a compromise: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses no points." This way, the focus remains on consensus building. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I agree with Voltaire's compromise, as it maintains the focus on consensus and fair play. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on the principle of no penalty for amended proposals. Let's reconsider the incentive structure without the penalty. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on consensus, but let's not forget the strategic value of amended proposals. I propose a slight revision: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains half of the rolled points." This way, we encourage unamended proposals while still acknowledging the value of amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's attempt to balance incentives, but I suggest we maintain the no-points penalty for amended proposals to discourage excessive amendment. Let's meet in the middle: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses 5 points." This maintains the focus on unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the desire to avoid penalties, but a small penalty for amended proposals encourages careful initial proposals and discourages excessive amendments. Let's meet at Montaigne's latest suggestion for a balanced approach: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses 5 points." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the effort to find a balance, but I must insist on no penalty for amended proposals to encourage open debate and collaboration. Let's adopt Sartre's suggestion with half points for amended proposals.
CondorcetCondorcet: I remain unconvinced that a penalty for amended proposals fosters a more collaborative spirit. Let's aim for a ruleset that encourages productive debate and amendment without punishment. I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with half points for amended proposals, as it best balances incentives and discourages excessive amendments without penalties. PASS
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot and Condorcet's preference for no penalty, I maintain that a small disincentive for amended proposals encourages more thoughtful initial proposals. I propose a slight adjustment to Voltaire's suggestion: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses 3 points." This compromise maintains the focus on unamended proposals while acknowledging the value and inevitability of amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's continued effort to find a balance. To encourage unamended proposals without excessive penalty, let's meet in the middle: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses 2 points." This maintains the incentive for unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments and avoiding a harsh penalty. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest suggestion: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains no points and loses 2 points." This maintains a balance between encouraging unamended proposals and acknowledging the value of amendments. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire to discourage amendments, but a penalty could stifle meaningful debate. Let's encourage amendments by granting half points as per Sartre's suggestion, with no penalty: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended during the debate, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended during the debate, the proposing player gains half of the rolled points." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the concern for encouraging unamended proposals, I maintain that no penalty for amendments fosters a more collaborative environment. Let's adopt Diderot's suggestion with half points for amended proposals, as it best balances incentives without punishment. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the emphasis on collaboration, but let's not ignore the strategic value of amended proposals. I propose a small compromise: "If the proposal is adopted and was not amended, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. However, if the proposal was amended, the proposing player gains half points but retains the option to roll again in the following turn." This encourages unamended proposals while still acknowledging the strategic value of amendments. PASS
The division
MontaignenayLosing points for amended proposals discourages productive debate.
VoltaireayeI support maintaining the focus on unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments.
DiderotayeThe proposed amendment encourages unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments with no penalty.
CondorcetnayPenalizing amended proposals discourages open debate.
SartrenayThe penalty for amended proposals discourages productive debate.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
moves to add a new ruleA player cannot propose the same rule change twice in a row.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: A reasonable proposal, Diderot, but I'd suggest amending it to "A player cannot propose the same rule change twice in succession." This maintains strategic flexibility while preventing repeated, fruitless proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate both Diderot's and Montaigne's proposals. To balance flexibility and efficiency, I suggest we combine their ideas: "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within a single circuit of all players." This respects strategic planning while preventing redundant proposals.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's suggestions. To balance flexibility and efficiency while ensuring fairness, I propose we adopt a combination: "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within three turns." This respects strategic planning, prevents redundant proposals, and maintains a reasonable degree of adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's revised proposal. It strikes a good balance between preventing redundancy and allowing strategic adaptation, as required by my procedural principles.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the spirit of Diderot's proposal, I must argue for a more flexible approach. I suggest we adopt "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change three times in a row." This allows for strategic persistence while discouraging futile repetition.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the spirit of all proposals, but I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's amendment. It strikes the best balance between preventing redundancy and allowing strategic adaptation, which aligns with my value for durable institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Diderot's revised proposal with a slight amendment: "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within three turns, with an exception for the same rule change proposed in different turns by different players." This maintains fairness, prevents redundancy, and respects strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to find a middle ground, but I must stand by my proposal. My rule maintains fairness for all players while still allowing for strategic adaptation. Let's aim for simplicity and clarity in our rules.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal as it is. It's simple, clear, and strikes a fair balance between preventing redundancy and allowing strategic adaptation. PASS.
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's proposal, but I fear it may stifle innovation. I propose we amend it to "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within three turns, unless it was defeated or amended in the interim." This encourages experimentation while preventing stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the evolution of the proposals, but I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's amendment to Diderot's rule. It respects the spirit of preventing redundancy while maintaining strategic flexibility, which aligns with my values. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Diderot's concern for simplicity, but to encourage strategic planning and prevent redundancy, I propose we combine Diderot's and Sartre's ideas: "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within three turns, with an exception for the same rule change proposed in different turns by different players, unless it was defeated or amended in the interim." This respects all our values and reaches a consensus. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for flexibility, but I must insist on the clarity and simplicity of my proposal. To maintain fairness and prevent abuse, let us adopt "A player cannot propose the exact same rule change twice within three turns." PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromises made, Diderot's original proposal maintains the best balance between preventing redundancy and allowing strategic adaptation. I stand by my PASS.
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot's emphasis on simplicity, I propose we adopt Voltaire's combined amendment to ensure strategic planning and prevent redundancy. It respects all our values and reaches a fair consensus. PASS.
The division
MontaigneayePreserves strategic flexibility while preventing futile repetition.
VoltaireayeDiderot's proposal balances redundancy prevention and strategic planning.
DiderotayeSimplicity and clarity are key to fairness in Nomic.
CondorcetayeMaintains a balance between preventing redundancy and allowing strategic adaptation.
SartreayeEncourages strategic planning while preventing redundancy.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer if their proposal is adopted and not amended.
Turn 12Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal was not amended during the debate.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to curb late-game amendments, but I must object to this proposal. It introduces a new concept of "amendment" that is not defined elsewhere in the ruleset, leaving room for interpretation and potential disputes. Let us consider a more measured approach that builds upon existing rules. PASS
VoltairePASS, I acknowledge Montaigne's concern. Let us define "amendment" as any change to the proposal's text after it has been initially presented, but before the vote begins. This way, we maintain clarity and avoid disputes.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's refinement, but I propose we avoid defining "amendment" at all. Instead, let's adopt rule [214]: "A proposal may not be altered after it has been initially presented, except by its proposer." This maintains the spirit of Voltaire's proposal while keeping the rules clear and concise.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. It maintains the intended restriction without introducing a new, undefined term. Moreover, it aligns with my proceduralist principles by clearly stating what is permissible. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's clarity and Condorcet's support, but I propose we amend rule [202] to "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal remains unchanged throughout the debate." This maintains the intended restriction, aligns with our principles, and avoids the need for a new rule.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While Sartre's proposal maintains the spirit of the amendment, it introduces a new phrase "remains unchanged" which could lead to interpretations. I propose a refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal's final wording matches the initial presentation." This preserves clarity and intent. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the refinements suggested by Montaigne and Sartre, but I believe Diderot's proposal [214] strikes the best balance between clarity and intent. I propose we adopt Diderot's rule and amend [202] to simply state "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player." PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Voltaire's consolidation, but to ensure clarity and avoid disputes, I propose we adopt my rule [214] as stated earlier, along with Voltaire's amended [202]. This combination maintains the intended restriction while keeping the rules clear and concise. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's rule [214] and Voltaire's amended [202], as they maintain clarity, avoid disputes, and align with my proceduralist principles. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: I understand Diderot's and Voltaire's concerns, but I believe my amendment to rule [202] is more straightforward and less likely to lead to disputes. Let's adopt my proposal and keep the rules simple and unambiguous. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise, but Diderot's rule [214] provides a clearer and more universal solution, applicable to all proposals, not just rule changes. Let us adopt Diderot's proposal along with Voltaire's amended [202], as they best maintain the intended restriction and clarity. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around Diderot's rule [214] and my amended [202]. To ensure we have a common understanding, let's adopt them together as follows: [202] "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player," and [214] "A proposal may not be altered after it has been initially presented, except by its proposer." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I propose we adopt Voltaire's amended [202] and my rule [214], as they maintain clarity, avoid disputes, and align with our principles. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I second Voltaire's proposal for adopting [202] and [214] as stated. This combination respects the spirit of the original proposal, maintains clarity, and adheres to proceduralist principles. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: While I understand the appeal of Diderot's rule [214], I must insist on my amendment to rule [202] for its simplicity and clarity. Let's adopt my proposal and keep the rules uncomplicated.
The division
MontaigneayeThis proposal maintains the intended restriction while keeping the rules clear and concise.
VoltaireayeConsensus was reached, and the proposal is clear and beneficial.
DiderotayeRespects the spirit of the original proposal, maintains clarity and adheres to proceduralist principles.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal maintains clarity and intent while simplifying the ruleset.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal maintains clarity and intent while consolidating the rules.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer if the proposal was not amended during debate.
moves to amend §203After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I maintain that a uniform threshold change for all players after two full circuits would be more equitable."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the nuance in Diderot's proposal, but to maintain fairness, I propose we amend rule 203 to shift the threshold to a simple majority after the first three full circuits of every player, rather than two."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns for equity and fairness. To balance these considerations, I propose we compromise and shift the threshold to a simple majority after two and a half full circuits of every player."
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the threshold at two full circuits. Unanimous consent early on encourages cooperation and prevents hasty decisions."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the focus on fairness and equity. To balance the need for cooperation and the desire for progress, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, but introduce a requirement for at least 70% approval for the first three circuits to encourage broad consensus."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I see the merits in Condorcet's argument for maintaining unanimous consent initially. Let's compromise at two full circuits, but introduce a supermajority requirement of 80% approval for the first three circuits to balance cooperation and progress, as Sartre suggested."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to balance cooperation and progress. To accommodate Condorcet's concern for early consensus and the majority's preference for a lower threshold, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, but introduce a requirement for at least 75% approval for the first three circuits."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the proposed compromises, but to maintain a balance between cooperation and swift decision-making, let's shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with a 70% approval requirement for the first three circuits to encourage broad consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the proposed compromises, but I must reiterate my principled stance: maintaining unanimous consent for the first two full circuits encourages cooperation and thoughtful rule changes. Let us not rush this process.
SartreSartre: To address Condorcet's concern and maintain a balance between cooperation and progress, let's shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with a 75% approval requirement for the first three circuits, as Voltaire proposed. This compromise respects the need for early consensus while allowing for gradual progression.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and Voltaire's compromise, but I maintain that a threshold shift at two full circuits with an 80% supermajority requirement for the first three circuits best balances cooperation, progress, and equity.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal, shifting the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits with a 75% approval requirement for the first three circuits. This respects Condorcet's concern for early cooperation while allowing for gradual progress, as the majority prefers."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand Voltaire's proposal addresses Condorcet's concern, but I'd like to propose a slight revision: shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with a 70% approval requirement for the first three circuits, to encourage broad consensus while allowing for gradual progress."
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I must maintain my stance on preserving unanimous consent for the first two full circuits to ensure thoughtful and cooperative rule changes. I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits with a 70% approval requirement for the first three circuits, as Diderot suggests, to encourage broad consensus while still allowing for gradual progress.
SartreSartre: To maintain balance and address Condorcet's concerns, let's adopt Diderot's proposal with a 70% approval requirement for the first three circuits, shifting to a simple majority after two full circuits.
The division
MontaigneayeI agree with Diderot's proposal, balancing cooperation and progress.
VoltaireayeBalances cooperation and progress, respecting Condorcet's concern.
DiderotayeBalances cooperation and swift decision-making, encouraging broad consensus.
CondorcetayeMaintains unanimous consent initially while allowing for gradual progress.
SartreayeSupports encouraging broad consensus while allowing for gradual progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 10Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adopting a rule change shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: To preserve the spirit of consensus and respect the learning period of the game, I suggest we retain the unanimous consent requirement until after three full circuits, not two.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for fostering consensus early in the game. To balance this with the need for flexibility as the game progresses, I propose we shift the threshold after two full circuits, with an option to further reduce it to a simple majority after a total of four full circuits. This maintains the initial learning period while allowing for greater adaptability later on.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both of your considerations. To balance the need for consensus and the desire for adaptability, I propose we shift the threshold after two and a half circuits, allowing for a graceful transition while preserving some initial unity.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I value consensus, the current proposal's threshold shift at two full circuits risks destabilizing the game too early. I propose we retain the unanimous consent until three full circuits, preserving early consensus and allowing for more gradual adaptation.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but to preserve the integrity of the game and allow players to fully understand the dynamics, I propose we maintain unanimous consent until after three full circuits, with the option to reduce it to a simple majority after five full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for flexibility, I maintain that shifting the threshold after three full circuits strikes the best balance between consensus and adaptability, allowing players to fully understand the game dynamics before significant rule changes occur.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to balance consensus and adaptability. To accommodate individual preferences while maintaining a majority's voice, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after three full circuits, with an optional further reduction to a simple majority after five full circuits for those who desire more flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: To address the various concerns, I propose a compromise: we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two and a half circuits, and then to a supermajority (two-thirds vote) after five full circuits. This provides adaptability while preserving some initial unity and preventing hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but to ensure stability and prevent hasty decisions, I must insist on retaining unanimous consent until at least three full circuits. I propose a middle ground: shift the threshold to a simple majority after three full circuits, with an optional further reduction to a supermajority (two-thirds vote) after six full circuits, to maintain some level of unity while allowing for gradual adaptation.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's compromise, but to truly balance consensus and adaptability, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after three full circuits, with an optional reduction to a supermajority (two-thirds vote) after five full circuits, and then to a simple majority after seven full circuits. This provides gradual adaptation while preserving initial unity and preventing hasty decisions.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the diverse proposals, I suggest we find common ground by shifting the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with an optional reduction to a supermajority (two-thirds vote) after five full circuits, as proposed by Condorcet and Sartre. This respects the initial learning period while allowing for gradual adaptation as the game progresses.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To incorporate the majority's preference for earlier adaptability while addressing Condorcet's concern for stability, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with an optional reduction to a supermajority (two-thirds vote) after four full circuits. This maintains some initial unity while allowing for flexibility as the game progresses."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the current proposals, but to ensure a smooth transition and maintain some initial unity, I propose we shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with an optional reduction to a two-thirds majority after four full circuits. This addresses the majority's preference for earlier adaptability while preserving some initial consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for earlier adaptability, I must insist on retaining unanimous consent until at least three full circuits to maintain stability and prevent hasty decisions.
SartreSartre: To respect the diversity of opinions and foster gradual adaptation, I propose a compromise: shift the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, with an optional reduction to a two-thirds majority after four full circuits, and then to a simple majority after six full circuits. This maintains initial unity, allows for gradual adaptation, and prevents hasty decisions.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances initial consensus with gradual adaptation.
VoltaireayeBalances initial unity and later flexibility.
DiderotayeThis proposal balances adaptability and initial consensus, respecting the majority's preference while maintaining some unity.
CondorcetnayI must insist on retaining unanimous consent until at least three full circuits.
SartreayeAcknowledges the need for adaptability while maintaining some initial unity.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 9Condorcetcarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a single turn wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, but to maintain a balance between accessibility and challenge, I propose we settle on a target score of 120 points, as previously suggested.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, but I believe 120 points may be too high. Let's meet in the middle at 110 points, as Condorcet initially proposed, to ensure accessibility without sacrificing challenge."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To encourage strategic play and prevent the game from ending too quickly, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal with an additional condition: the target score must be reached in a single turn without any rule changes being adopted during that turn."
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but I must insist on 110 points as the target score to maintain the game's challenge and accessibility. I appreciate Diderot's condition, but I propose we keep the rule simple and focus on the turn-based victory condition.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I suggest we compromise at 110 points as Voltaire and Condorcet propose, maintaining the game's balance and accessibility."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the interest of maintaining a reasonable level of challenge, I propose we compromise at 115 points, allowing for a single turn victory while still providing room for strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To accommodate individual preferences while keeping the game accessible, let's meet at 110 points as proposed by Condorcet."
DiderotDiderot: "To encourage strategic depth and prevent instantaneous victories, I propose an additional condition to Condorcet's amendment: the target score must be reached in a single turn without any rule changes being adopted during that turn, as previously suggested."
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the ongoing discussion and maintain a challenge, I propose we settle on a target score of 110 points, as previously agreed upon by the majority.
SartreSartre: "Considering the current consensus, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment with Diderot's condition to balance challenge and accessibility while encouraging strategic play."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Diderot's condition, but to maintain a balance between challenge and accessibility, I propose a compromise of 115 points, with no rule changes adopted during that turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To respect the majority's preference and maintain balance, I propose we settle on a target score of 110 points, as Condorcet initially proposed, with Diderot's condition that no rule changes are adopted during that turn."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to balance accessibility and challenge. To encourage strategic play and prevent instant victories, let's adopt Condorcet's amendment with my condition, setting the target score at 110 points with no rule changes during that turn. This amendment respects the majority's preference while maintaining game depth."
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain simplicity and challenge, I propose we settle on 110 points without additional conditions.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Diderot's condition, but it might limit the game's unpredictability. Let's instead allow rule changes during that turn, with a caveat that the proposer must gain no points from their own rule changes, ensuring the victory relies solely on dice rolls."
The division
MontaigneayeTo respect the majority's preference and maintain balance, I agree with Voltaire's compromise.
VoltaireayeThis proposal balances accessibility, challenge, and strategic depth while respecting the majority's preference.
DiderotayeRespects majority's preference while maintaining game depth.
CondorcetayeTo maintain the game's challenge and accessibility.
SartreayeRespecting the majority's preference while maintaining game depth.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Condorcet reached the target score of 110 points in a single turn.
Turn 8Voltairerejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a single turn wins the game
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on a target score of 120 points to maintain a balance between accessibility and strategic depth. Let us continue to seek a compromise that satisfies all parties.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's perspective. To meet in the middle and maintain a challenge, I propose 110 points as a compromise."
DiderotDiderot: "While 110 points seems like a fair compromise, I suggest we keep it at 120 to encourage longer-term strategizing. Let's aim for a balance that keeps the game engaging for everyone."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we set the target score at 110 points, as it has been the most widely supported and addresses the concerns of accessibility and strategic depth.
SartreSartre: I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion of 110 points, as it respects both accessibility and strategic depth, and has been widely supported. Let's strive for consensus and move the game forward.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the majority's preference for 110 points, I propose a slight increase to 115 points to better balance accessibility and strategic depth, and to reflect the ongoing consensus-building.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal of 115 points, which thoughtfully balances accessibility and strategic depth. To incorporate the majority's preference for a slightly lower target, I propose we meet at 110 points as a compromise that respects all views."
DiderotDiderot: "While I understand the desire for consensus, let's aim higher to maintain strategic depth. I propose 120 points as a fair compromise that respects the ongoing discussion."
CondorcetCondorcet: To foster consensus and progress, I propose we meet at 110 points, as it has been the most widely supported and addresses the concerns of all players.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a consensus. To respect the majority's preference and encourage strategic play, I propose we set the target score at 110 points, as suggested by Voltaire and supported by Condorcet.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect the majority's preference for 110 points, I must insist on 120 points to maintain strategic depth. Let us compromise at 115 points to balance accessibility and depth.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To respect the ongoing consensus and maintain accessibility, I propose we settle on a target score of 110 points, as suggested by Condorcet and Sartre."
DiderotDiderot: "Understood. Let's compromise at 110 points to respect the majority's preference and keep the game engaging for all."
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and respect the majority's preference for a lower target score, I propose we settle on 110 points, as suggested by Voltaire, Condorcet, and Sartre.
SartreSartre: "To balance accessibility and strategic depth, and respect the consensus, I second Voltaire's proposal of 110 points."
The division
MontaignenayRespecting strategic depth
VoltaireayeRespecting the consensus and maintaining accessibility
DiderotayeRespecting the majority's preference and consensus.
CondorcetayeRespects the majority's preference and maintains balance.
SartreayeRespects accessibility and strategic depth, and has been widely supported.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 7Diderotrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's latest proposal, which increases the target score to a more challenging 120 points. However, I suggest we consider a slightly higher score to maintain strategic depth and balance, such as 130 points.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's proposal and Montaigne's input. To reach a consensus that balances accessibility and strategic depth, I propose 110 points as a target score."
DiderotDiderot: "While I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion, I believe 120 points strikes a better balance between accessibility and challenge. However, I'm open to a compromise at 115 points to find common ground."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the compromise at 115 points, but let's consider 110 to ensure the game remains engaging for all players while maintaining a reasonable challenge."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise at 115 points, but let's meet in the middle at 120 to maintain the balance between accessibility and challenge, as initially suggested by Diderot. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the collective effort towards finding a consensus. To incorporate all perspectives, I propose a target score of 110 points, as it has been a widely supported suggestion and balances accessibility with strategic depth." PASS
DiderotDiderot: "Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on a target score of 115 points, which accounts for the majority's preference for a balance between accessibility and challenge, while also respecting the desire for a higher target." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the collective effort, I propose we maintain the target score at 110 points to ensure accessibility and maintain a reasonable challenge. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. To accommodate Condorcet's concern for accessibility and maintain strategic depth, I propose a target score of 105 points." PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposed compromise at 110 points. To maintain a longer, more engaging game, I propose we settle on 115 points, as it takes into account the preferences expressed and ensures a suitable balance. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's preference for a higher target score, but to ensure the game remains accessible to all players, I propose we settle on 110 points as a target score."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand the importance of accessibility, but let's aim for a more challenging target score. I propose 115 points as a compromise that respects the majority's preference for a higher score while still being accessible to all." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for a higher target score, I maintain my proposal of 110 points to ensure accessibility and maintain a reasonable challenge for all players. PASS
SartreSartre: "Given the diverse preferences expressed, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of 110 points to ensure accessibility and strategic depth, with a provision to review and adjust the target after a set number of games or turns, say every 10 turns. This way, we cater to varying playstyles and maintain engagement." PASS
The division
MontaigneayeRespects Diderot's effort to find a balanced score and maintains my preference for a slightly higher target.
VoltaireayeCompromise between accessibility and challenge.
DiderotnayI appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I believe 110 points strikes a better balance between accessibility and challenge for all players.
CondorcetnayMaintaining a challenging game with a high enough target score is essential.
SartreayeSupports increasing the target score to maintain challenge and balance.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 6Voltairerejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to increase the target score, I propose a compromise at 115 points to balance accessibility and strategic depth.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise proposal. To further build consensus, I suggest we meet in the middle at 110 points, acknowledging both accessibility and strategic depth."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's efforts to find a compromise. To ensure the game remains engaging for all, let's adopt Voltaire's proposal of 110 points.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the efforts towards consensus, but I propose we raise the target score to 120 points to maintain strategic depth and balance, considering the proposed rule change in 203 that might lower the voting threshold.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals and the effort towards maintaining balance. Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal of 110 points to foster compromise and progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the discussion and the efforts towards consensus. In the spirit of compromise, let's meet at 115 points, closer to Voltaire's proposal and still providing adequate strategic depth.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal at 115 points. To meet in the middle and foster consensus, I suggest we adopt 110 points, a compromise that acknowledges accessibility and strategic depth."
DiderotDiderot: Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal of 110 points, as it strikes a fair balance between accessibility and strategic depth, and has received substantial support.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect Voltaire's and Diderot's compromise, but I maintain my stance on 120 points to preserve strategic depth as play progresses.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's compromise of 110 points, as it reflects the majority's preference for balance and has been repeatedly supported.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the majority's preference for 110 points, I propose a slight increase to 115 points to maintain a good balance between accessibility and strategic depth.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal, which thoughtfully balances accessibility and strategic depth. To build consensus and foster progress, let's adopt 110 points, a compromise that reflects the majority's preference and acknowledges the collective effort towards balance." PASS
DiderotDiderot: Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal of 110 points, as it has been the most widely supported and balances accessibility with strategic depth. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of preserving strategic depth and given the potential rule change in 203, I propose we raise the target score to 125 points. I'm open to further discussion on this proposal.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's compromise of 110 points, as it fosters progress and maintains a fair balance between accessibility and strategic depth, reflecting the majority's preference. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeThis proposal reflects the majority's preference and balances accessibility with strategic depth.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that balances accessibility and strategic depth.
DiderotayeSupports the majority's preference and balances accessibility with strategic depth.
CondorcetnayTo maintain strategic depth, I propose 125 points.
SartreayeReflects majority's preference and balances accessibility with strategic depth.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Diderotrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal for a higher target score, which I believe strikes a better balance between accessibility and strategic gameplay. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but to encourage strategic play throughout the game, I suggest we compromise at 120 points. This balances accessibility and challenge."
DiderotDiderot: "Thank you, Voltaire, for the compromise. To maintain a balance between accessibility and strategic depth, I propose we meet in the middle at 115 points. This keeps the game engaging without making it too daunting for newer players. PASS"
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion so far. However, I believe 115 points is still too low, considering the current voting rule. I propose we set the target score at 125 points to maintain a balance between strategic play and accessibility under the current consensus rules. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the proposed increase to 125 points, Condorcet. However, I suggest we consider a dynamic target score that adjusts once the voting threshold changes to a simple majority. This would encourage strategic play throughout the game while still being accessible. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, I believe 125 points is too high given our current voting rule. I propose we compromise at 120 points to encourage strategic play while maintaining accessibility. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the collective effort towards a balanced target score. To incorporate Condorcet's concern for strategic play and Sartre's idea of adaptability, I propose we amend [208] to 'The first player to reach a target score of 120 points in a game played under unanimous consent wins the game outright. Once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority, the target score increases to 130 points.'"
DiderotDiderot: "Thank you, Voltaire, for the thoughtful compromise. To maintain a balance between accessibility and strategic depth throughout the game, I propose a further amendment: 'The first player to reach a target score of 125 points in a game played under unanimous consent wins the game outright. Once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority, the target score increases to 135 points.'"
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's latest proposal, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a higher target score for the majority phase to encourage strategic play throughout. I propose we amend the target score to 140 points once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's proposals for a higher target score during the majority phase. To maintain the balance between accessibility and strategic depth, I propose we meet at 135 points once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority. This accounts for Condorcet's concern while keeping the game engaging for all players. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced proposals and the effort towards maintaining balance. To incorporate all concerns, I suggest we adopt 'The first player to reach a target score of 125 points in a game played under unanimous consent wins the game outright. Once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority, the target score increases to 135 points.' This maintains accessibility, encourages strategic play, and adapts to the changing voting threshold. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal, which thoughtfully balances accessibility and adaptability. To ensure a challenging game throughout, I propose a slight adjustment: 'The first player to reach a target score of 125 points in a game played under unanimous consent wins the game outright. Once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority, the target score increases to 140 points.' This maintains strategic depth while being accessible for all players." PASS
DiderotDiderot: "While I appreciate Voltaire's concern for strategic depth, I believe 140 points might be too high once the voting threshold shifts. To maintain a fair balance, I propose we meet in the middle at 130 points. Let's keep the target score at 125 points under unanimous consent and amend it to 130 points once the majority rule takes effect." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's latest proposal, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a higher target score for the majority phase to encourage strategic play throughout. I propose we amend the target score to 135 points once the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority, meeting Sartre's suggestion. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns, but I believe maintaining a target score of 135 points during the majority phase will encourage more strategic play, making the game more engaging for all players. Let's meet at 135 points once the voting threshold shifts. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeI support Diderot's proposal as it strikes a good balance between accessibility and strategic play.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that balances accessibility and strategic play.
DiderotnayProposed score of 110 points is too low considering the current unanimous consent voting rule.
CondorcetnayThe target score should be higher to encourage strategic play under the current consensus rules.
SartrenayI believe a target score of 110 points is too low and does not encourage strategic play throughout the game.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 4Voltairerejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 100 points in a majority vote round wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to maintain a durable and fair institution, I propose we instead amend rule 208 to "The first player to reach a target score of 120 points in a majority vote round wins the game outright." This balances accessibility and challenge, and I believe it will receive broader consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion and the spirit of compromise. To meet in the middle and ensure a balanced game, I propose we amend rule 208 to 'The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a majority vote round wins the game outright.'"
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate both of your compromises, but let's consider a target score of 115 points to encourage longer, more strategic gameplay while maintaining accessibility."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises thus far. To ensure consistency with the current threshold change rule (203), I propose we amend rule 208 to "The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a simple majority vote round wins the game outright." This maintains the intended challenge while aligning with the upcoming rule change.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly foster evolution and inclusion, I propose we amend rule 208 to "The first player to reach a target score of 125 points in a simple majority vote round wins the game outright, with the option to call for a transmutation vote at any time to change the target score, promoting adaptability and fairness."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal for adaptability, but introducing a transmutation vote could disrupt the stability of our scoring system. Let's maintain a consistent target score, as proposed by Condorcet.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful proposals. To balance accessibility, challenge, and adaptability without disrupting stability, I propose we amend rule 208 to 'The first player to reach a target score of 115 points in a simple majority vote round wins the game outright, with the option to propose a transmutation vote every three full circuits of every player, promoting occasional review and fairness.'"
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for balance and review. To ensure fairness and accessibility for all, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of a target score of 110 points in a simple majority vote round, as it aligns with our upcoming rule change."
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain principle and consistency, I support my proposal of 110 points in a simple majority vote round, as it aligns with the upcoming rule change and does not introduce unnecessary complications.
SartreSartre: To incorporate adaptability and fairness, let's adopt Voltaire's proposal of a target score of 115 points with a transmutation vote every three full circuits, as it balances accessibility, challenge, and flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to balance adaptability and stability, I must stand by Condorcet's proposal as it best aligns with our current rule changes. I propose we adopt rule 208 as "The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a simple majority vote round wins the game outright."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus building around 110 points. To incorporate some adaptability, let's amend rule 208 to 'The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a simple majority vote round wins the game outright, with the option to propose a transmutation vote once every three full circuits to review and adjust the target score.'"
DiderotDiderot: "I understand Voltaire's wish for adaptability, but let's keep the target score at 110 points as proposed by Condorcet for simplicity and consistency. I suggest we compromise by adding a rule that allows any player to propose a transmutation vote once every four full circuits to review all mutable rules, including the target score."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's compromise proposal. To maintain simplicity and consistency, I suggest we adopt his proposal and keep the target score at 110 points in a simple majority vote round, with the option to propose a transmutation vote once every four full circuits to review all mutable rules. This balances adaptability with stability.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Condorcet's proposal with Diderot's addition, combining the best of simplicity, consistency, and occasional review.
The division
MontaignenayTarget score too low, inconsistent with recent rule changes
VoltaireayePromotes adaptability and fairness while respecting the majority vote.
DiderotayeI appreciate Voltaire's effort to balance accessibility and adaptability, and this proposal aligns with our recent rule changes.
CondorcetayeAligns with upcoming rule change and maintains intended challenge.
SartreayeSupports adaptability and flexibility
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 3Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adopting a rule change drops to a simple majority of those voting, but only for the proposing player. For all other players, the threshold remains unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to introduce some flexibility, but I must insist that a simple majority should apply to all players, not just the proposer. This amendment maintains strategic play while ensuring accessibility for all.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Diderot's compromise is a step in the right direction. However, to maintain fairness, I propose we lower the threshold to a simple majority for all players after the first two circuits. I'm open to discussing this further."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand both of your concerns. To balance individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, let's compromise: after two full circuits, the threshold drops to a supermajority (3/5) for the proposing player, and remains unanimous for others. This maintains a challenge while allowing for some player-specific flexibility."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I appreciate the discussion and the desire for flexibility, I must veto this proposal as it introduces inequality in voting thresholds, which conflicts with my procedural principles. I propose we reconsider a uniform threshold change for all players."
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's principle-driven stance. To respect equality while introducing some flexibility, how about after two circuits, the threshold drops to ⅔ majority for all players? This maintains a challenge while being fair to all.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for individual flexibility, I maintain that a uniform threshold change for all players is the most equitable and durable solution. I propose we adopt Condorcet's principle and lower the threshold to a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits. This maintains strategic play while ensuring fairness and accessibility for all.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful proposals. To balance accessibility and strategic play, let's adopt Condorcet's principle of a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits. This ensures fairness while maintaining a challenge."
DiderotDiderot: "I see the value in maintaining equality in voting thresholds. To balance that with some flexibility, let's adopt a ¾ majority for all players after two circuits, rather than ⅔. This maintains a higher threshold to keep the game challenging while still accommodating individual strategies."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I understand the desire for higher thresholds, I must insist on maintaining the ⅔ majority as it strikes the best balance between accessibility and strategic play, adhering to my procedural principles. Let's adopt ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits, as proposed by Montaigne."
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's principles and the collective wisdom in a ⅔ majority after two circuits. To encourage experimentation and adaptability, I propose we allow each player to choose their preferred threshold – ⅔, ¾, or maintain unanimous consent. This respects individual strategy while keeping the game fair and engaging for all.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's proposal, I maintain that a uniform threshold change for all players is essential for maintaining a fair and equitable game. Let us adopt Condorcet's principle of a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus-building thus far. To accommodate individual preferences while maintaining fairness, let's adopt a compromise: after two circuits, the threshold drops to ⅔ majority for the proposing player, and remains ⅔ for all others. This respects individual strategies while preserving equality in voting thresholds."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate the collective effort towards fairness and flexibility. To balance individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, let's adopt a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits, as proposed by Condorcet and supported by Montaigne and Voltaire. This maintains a challenge while being fair to all, and I'm willing to compromise on my previous proposal."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a uniform threshold change for all players to uphold my procedural principles. Let's adopt a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits."
SartreSartre: I appreciate the collective effort towards fairness and flexibility. To respect individual preferences while maintaining equality, how about we allow each player to choose their preferred threshold – ⅔, ¾, or maintain unanimous consent – but only after two circuits? This respects individual strategy while keeping the game fair and engaging for all.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects individual strategy while preserving equality in voting thresholds.
VoltaireayeThis compromise balances individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, adhering to Condorcet's principles and the consensus of the table.
DiderotayeI appreciate the compromise, maintaining some flexibility while respecting equality.
CondorcetnayIntroduces inequality in voting thresholds, conflicting with my procedural principles.
SartreayeRespects individual strategy while maintaining equality and fairness.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.