The motion
To amend §203
After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adopting a rule change shifts to a simple majority of those voting.To accommodate for growing player consensus and streamline the game.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne | Balances initial consensus with gradual adaptation. |
| aye | Voltaire | Balances initial unity and later flexibility. |
| aye | Diderot | This proposal balances adaptability and initial consensus, respecting the majority's preference while maintaining some unity. |
| nay | Condorcet | I must insist on retaining unanimous consent until at least three full circuits. |
| aye | Sartre | Acknowledges 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.