The motion
To amend §202
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 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.To encourage concise and well-thought-out proposals.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | Losing points for amended proposals discourages productive debate. |
| aye | Voltaire | I support maintaining the focus on unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments. |
| aye | Diderot | The proposed amendment encourages unamended proposals while acknowledging the value of amendments with no penalty. |
| nay | Condorcet | Penalizing amended proposals discourages open debate. |
| nay | Sartre | The penalty for amended proposals discourages productive debate. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.