The motion
To amend §202
A 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.Encourage clear, unamendable proposals while maintaining a manageable penalty.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | A penalty of 3 points may hinder strategic planning. |
| aye | Voltaire | Encourages unamended proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate. |
| nay | Diderot | The penalty of 3 points may not be sufficient to discourage frequent amendments. |
| nay | Condorcet | A penalty of 3 points for amendments may be too lenient, encouraging excessive amendments and hindering the spirit of Nomic. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages unamended proposals while allowing substantial debate. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.