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 open debate and swift rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While I appreciate the current amendment structure, I propose we maintain the original cap of three amendments to encourage more debate and flexibility, with the 2-point penalty remaining for each amendment made after the first."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's desire for more debate, but the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes a good balance between flexibility and discouraging excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate both of your perspectives. However, I believe a cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty could stifle meaningful debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments, with a 5-point penalty for each amendment made after the first, to ensure ample discussion while still discouraging abuse."
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining balance between debate and efficiency is crucial. I propose we adopt Diderot's compromise: unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This encourages thorough discussion while still incentivizing concise proposals.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between debate and efficiency. To maintain fairness, I propose we adopt a cap of two amendments per turn with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first, as it encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals to balance debate and efficiency. To find consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: a cap of two amendments per turn with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first. This encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's proposal to maintain a balance between open debate and efficient gameplay. A cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty for each amendment after the first encourages meaningful discussion while preventing excessive changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between debate and efficiency. However, I maintain that a cap on amendments could stifle meaningful debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment made after the first, to encourage thorough discussion while still discouraging abuse. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the preference for a cap, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first, to strike a balance between debate and efficiency while ensuring sufficient discussion. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's concern for thorough debate, but a cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first seems to best balance the need for discussion with the need for efficient gameplay. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's desire for extensive debate, I must reiterate my support for Sartre's proposal. A cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty strikes a balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments with a 3-point penalty. To address Condorcet's concern for consistency, I propose we make this rule apply to all turns, not just after the first two full circuits. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus forming, I must insist on unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thorough discussion. I propose we keep the rule as it is, with the penalty applying after the first amendment, as it encourages more debate without disrupting the game's pace. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern for thorough debate, I propose we amend Voltaire's latest proposal to include a limit of three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two. This maintains a balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay while allowing for more extensive debate when necessary. PASS
SartreSartre: To foster a balance between thorough discussion and efficient gameplay, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest amendment: a cap of three amendments per turn, with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two. This encourages extensive debate when necessary while maintaining the game's pace.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I prefer the balance struck by Sartre's proposal: a cap of three amendments per turn with a 3-point penalty for each amendment after the first two. |
| aye | Voltaire | I support maintaining a balance between open debate and efficient gameplay. |
| nay | Diderot | I must insist on unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thorough discussion. |
| nay | Condorcet | I cannot support a cap lower than three amendments to maintain adequate debate. |
| aye | Sartre | To maintain balance between open discussion and efficient gameplay. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.