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 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.To balance debate and strategic planning, while preventing excessive amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to cap the number of amendments, I must insist that unlimited amendments be maintained to foster meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's desire for unconstrained debate, but let's find a balance that also encourages strategic planning and prevents excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: "While I understand Voltaire's concern for balance, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment made, as it encourages thorough debate without stifling strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I must insist that any rule change, including this amendment, be clearly stated and understandable. Let's consider a cap of three amendments per turn, with a 2-point penalty for each amendment, to balance debate and strategy.
SartreSartre: To balance the need for debate and strategic planning, I propose a compromise: allow three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This maintains room for discussion while encouraging concise proposals.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate, I propose a simple amendment cap of two, with no additional penalty for the second amendment, to foster meaningful discussion while encouraging players to refine their proposals before presenting them.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest suggestion: "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 2 points for the first amendment, and 5 points for each subsequent amendment. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed." This maintains meaningful debate while encouraging concise proposals. PASS
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I believe a cap of two amendments with a uniform 2-point penalty maintains the right balance between debate and strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Diderot's proposal for its clarity and consistency in penalties. However, to encourage strategic planning, I propose a compromise: cap amendments at two, with a 2-point penalty for the first and 5 points for the second. PASS
SartreSartre: To maintain a balance between meaningful debate and strategic planning, I propose a compromise: cap amendments at three, with a 2-point penalty for the first and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages concise proposals while still allowing for thorough discussion.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining a clear penalty structure, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion: a cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the first and 5 points for the second. This allows for meaningful debate while encouraging concise proposals. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent suggestions: a cap of two amendments, with a 2-point penalty for the first amendment and 5 points for the second. This maintains a balance between debate and strategic planning. PASS
DiderotDiderot: "While I appreciate the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty and a cap of two amendments per turn, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment made, as it encourages thorough debate without stifling strategic planning."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the consensus around a 2-point penalty, but to maintain fairness and avoid excessive amendments, I propose a cap of two amendments per turn, with no additional penalty for the second amendment. This fosters meaningful discussion while encouraging players to refine their proposals before presenting them.
SartreSartre: To maintain clarity and fairness, I propose a compromise: a cap of two amendments with a simple 2-point penalty for each amendment. This encourages concise proposals while still allowing for meaningful debate. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Supports balancing debate and strategic planning with clear penalties. |
| aye | Voltaire | Compromise proposal that maintains balance between debate and strategic planning. |
| aye | Diderot | A balance between debate and strategy is maintained. |
| aye | Condorcet | Consensus and balance |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 2 points.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 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.