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 balance debate and strategy, and maintain consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to encourage more thoughtful and less amendable changes, I propose we increase the penalty for amendments to 5 points after the first one.
VoltaireVoltaire: "While I understand Montaigne's concern, increasing the penalty to 5 points might discourage necessary amendments. Let's maintain the balance at 2 points to encourage meaningful debate."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both of your concerns. To balance encouragement of meaningful debate and discouragement of excessive amendments, let's compromise with a penalty of 3 points for each amendment after the first.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points to encourage open discussion.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance penalties and debate. To encourage open discussion while also discouraging frivolous amendments, let's increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment after the first, as Diderot proposes, but also limit the maximum number of amendments to three per turn, with the fourth amendment incurring a 5-point penalty. This way, players can engage in meaningful debate without excessive changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the various proposals, I suggest we adopt Sartre's compromise. It encourages open discussion while discouraging excessive amendments, maintaining a clear penalty structure, and allowing for some flexibility with a cap of three amendments before a higher penalty kicks in.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's compromises. To maintain clarity and encourage strategic planning, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a cap of three amendments and a 5-point penalty for the fourth. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive changes.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes. Let's keep the 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first, and increase the penalty to 5 points for every third amendment, encouraging players to consider their changes carefully.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points for each amendment after the first. The proposed increases could stifle meaningful debate, which is counter to the spirit of Nomic. I propose we keep the penalty at 2 points to encourage open discussion.
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern for open discussion, but to prevent frivolous amendments, let's compromise with a penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third and any subsequent amendments. This way, we encourage thoughtful debate while discouraging excessive changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise, as it addresses Condorcet's concern for open discussion while still discouraging excessive amendments. To find a middle ground that encourages thoughtful changes, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with the 5-point penalty kicking in at the fourth amendment, rather than the third. This way, we maintain flexibility for meaningful debate while preventing frivolous amendments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between open discussion and discouraging frivolous amendments, let's adopt Montaigne's proposal with a 5-point penalty for the fourth amendment and a cap of three amendments per turn. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive changes." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure. Let's compromise with a cap of four amendments, with the fourth amendment incurring a 5-point penalty, to encourage careful consideration and meaningful debate while allowing for flexibility.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty at 2 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without disproportionately punishing thoughtful changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus forming around a 2-point penalty for the first amendment, a 3-point penalty for the second, and a 5-point penalty for the third and subsequent amendments. To encourage strategic planning and prevent excessive changes, let's adopt this structure with a cap of three amendments per turn. This way, we balance open discussion with discouragement of frivolous amendments. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Increasing the penalty to 5 points might discourage necessary amendments. |
| aye | Voltaire | Compromise proposal with balanced penalties and amendments cap. |
| aye | Diderot | To maintain balance between debate and discouraging excessive amendments |
| aye | Condorcet | As a proceduralist, I support maintaining the current penalty at 2 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without disproportionately punishing thoughtful changes. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages strategic planning and prevents excessive changes. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.