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.Maintains clarity, encourages meaningful debate, and penalizes excessive amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I'd like to see a penalty for amendments that increases with each amendment made after the first, to discourage excessive changes. Might I suggest: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 4 points for the third, and so on, reflecting the increasing burden on the group."
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but I believe a progressive penalty could stifle meaningful debate. Let's maintain Diderot's proposal for a flat 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first, and encourage players to use amendments wisely.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To balance encouragement of meaningful debate and discouragement of excessive amendments, I propose a compromise: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, and an additional 2 points for each subsequent amendment." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises being made. To encourage strategic planning and prevent abuse, I propose we adopt a penalty structure that increases with each subsequent amendment, but caps at a reasonable amount. How about: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate and discouraging excessive changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's cap on the penalty, I believe a flat increase per amendment better balances encouraging debate and discouraging excess. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, and an additional 2 points for each subsequent amendment." PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's preference for a progressive penalty, but Diderot's proposal strikes a balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excess. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion as a compromise that respects the spirit of the game." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty that increases progressively. The current proposal does not sufficiently discourage excessive amendments. I propose: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate and discouraging excessive changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's concern for progressive penalties, but Diderot's proposal offers a more balanced approach. I propose we meet in the middle: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." This respects the need for debate while encouraging players to be mindful of excessive changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the continued effort to balance penalties and debate. However, I must reiterate my support for Diderot's latest proposal as it maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for necessary debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance. To encourage meaningful debate while discouraging excess, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise: 'The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth.'" PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the consensus forming around Sartre's latest proposal. To ensure clarity and maintain a reasonable penalty structure, I propose we adopt it as is: "The proposing player loses 2 points for the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the progress made towards a balanced penalty structure, but I must insist on maintaining a limit of two amendments per turn to prevent excessive changes. I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a cap of two amendments: "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 the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's concern for limiting amendments, but I believe a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty offers the best balance. Let's adopt Condorcet's proposal with the amendment limit: "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 the second amendment, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth. No additional points are lost for amendments beyond the fourth." PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I prefer a penalty structure that increases with each amendment |
| aye | Voltaire | Respects the spirit of the game and balances encouragement of debate with discouragement of excess. |
| aye | Diderot | I support maintaining clarity and simplicity in our rules. |
| aye | Condorcet | Condorcet supports the proposal to maintain clarity and balance in the penalty structure for amendments. |
| aye | Sartre | Progressive penalty encourages mindful amending. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.