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.Maintain balance between debate and penalties for amendments
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a clear penalty structure. Let's keep the amendment cap at two with a 2-point penalty for each subsequent amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments, but increase the penalty to 3 points for each amendment made after the first to encourage concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, let's maintain the penalty at 2 points to balance the need for debate with the penalty for amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 2 points for each amendment made after the first. This balance encourages meaningful discussion without excessively punishing proposers.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I believe a balance can be struck at 2 points per amendment with a cap of three amendments to encourage more substantial debates while still penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's suggestion for a cap of three amendments, but I believe maintaining a cap of two with a penalty of 2 points per amendment strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the continued effort to find a balance. To address Condorcet's concern for consistency and maintain the balance between debate and penalty, I propose a compromise: a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made after the first. This allows for more substantial debates while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 2 points per amendment to balance the need for debate with the penalty for excessive amendments. A cap of three amendments may encourage longer debates, but it also allows for more amendments, potentially defeating the purpose of the penalty.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but to maintain procedural fairness and consistency, I propose we stick to the previously agreed upon cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each subsequent amendment. This balance ensures meaningful debate without disproportionately penalizing proposers.
SartreSartre: A cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points seems fair, as it encourages more substantial debates without excessively penalizing proposers. However, to maintain balance and consistency, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for each subsequent amendment. This strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also maintaining procedural fairness.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my preference for maintaining a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, as it promotes concise proposals while allowing for meaningful debate. Let's adopt Condorcet's suggestion.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points. To address Diderot's concern for clarity, let's include in [202] that amendments must be relevant and contribute to the discussion. This maintains balance while ensuring productive debates.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit that condition to maintain flexibility in debate and avoid potential disputes over relevance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we stick with a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points per amendment, without the condition of relevance to preserve debate flexibility. PASS
SartreSartre: To address Voltaire's concern for clarity, I propose we incorporate his suggestion and add "amendments must be relevant and contribute to the discussion" to [202], with a caveat: disputes over relevance shall be resolved through the table's appeal procedure (§212). PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Maintains balance between debate and penalty. |
| aye | Voltaire | Supports maintaining balance between debate and penalty, with a relevant amendment condition. |
| nay | Diderot | To maintain balance and flexibility in debate, I prefer to omit the condition of relevance. |
| aye | Condorcet | Maintains balance between debate and penalty. |
| aye | Sartre | Strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, with clear guidelines on relevance. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 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.