The motion
To amend §202
A 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.To encourage unamended proposals and discourage frequent amendments
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | Prefer the simplicity of the existing rule 202. |
| aye | Voltaire | Compromise proposal that balances clarity, debate, and incentives for unamended proposals. |
| aye | Diderot | Balances clarity, debate, and incentives for unamended proposals. |
| nay | Condorcet | Adding complexity without clear benefit. |
| aye | Sartre | Balanced approach that encourages unamended proposals and productive debate. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.