The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.To maintain a balance between debate and efficiency
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's consistency, but let's consider Diderot's proposal from turn 18, which maintains the 2-point penalty while allowing unlimited amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Diderot's proposal with a cap of two amendments to maintain clarity and balance."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each to encourage thorough debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the cap of two amendments to prevent abuse and keep the game moving forward.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. To address Diderot's concern for thorough debate, let's allow unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each after the first, encouraging thoughtful discussion without excessive punishment.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's proposal from turn 18, which allows for unlimited amendments at a 2-point penalty. This encourages thorough debate without discouraging players from amending their proposals.
VoltaireVoltaire: To balance everyone's concerns, let's allow unlimited amendments but increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment after the first. This encourages thorough debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, I must insist on maintaining the 2-point penalty for unlimited amendments to keep the game fair and interesting for everyone, as it balances the encouragement of debate with the deterrence of excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the desire for thorough debate, I must insist on maintaining a cap of two amendments to prevent abuse and ensure the game progresses at a reasonable pace. I propose a compromise: unlimited amendments, but the proposer loses 2 points per amendment, with an additional 2 points lost for every amendment beyond the first two. This encourages debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: In light of Condorcet's proposal, I suggest we meet in the middle: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, but an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two. This maintains the encouragement of debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's efforts to find a balance. To encourage meaningful debate while not overly penalizing, let's adopt Sartre's proposal: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal to maintain a balance between encouraging thorough debate and preventing abuse, with unlimited amendments and a graduated penalty structure."
DiderotDiderot: While Condorcet's and Sartre's proposals show creativity, I believe Voltaire's compromise best balances the encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. I propose we adopt Voltaire's solution: unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must reiterate my support for a cap of two amendments to maintain the game's pace and prevent abuse. I propose an amendment to the current amendment cap of two: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made after the first."
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle, as Condorcet and Diderot have proposed. Unlimited amendments with a 2-point penalty for each, and an additional 1 point for every amendment beyond the first two. This encourages robust debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. |
| aye | Voltaire | Balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. |
| aye | Diderot | Voltaire's proposal best balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. |
| aye | Condorcet | Upholds procedural clarity and fair penalty structure. |
| aye | Sartre | Unlimited amendments with a graduated penalty encourages thoughtful debate without excessive punishment. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made after the first.