The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.Encourage unamended proposals while allowing for necessary debate
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne | A 2-point penalty and 1-point bonus for unamended victories strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments. |
| aye | Voltaire | Supports balanced penalty and bonus for unamended victories. |
| aye | Diderot | Maintaining balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | A penalty for amended proposals is necessary to discourage strategic amendment, and Voltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance. |
| aye | Sartre | Voltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between discouraging amendments and encouraging meaningful debate. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 was not amended during the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 5 points if the proposal is amended during the debate.