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 three amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.To encourage more extensive debate and provide additional opportunities for amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to further encourage debate, but I must reiterate my preference for a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each, as it strikes a better balance between openness and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate Diderot's proposal and Montaigne's input. To find a middle ground, I suggest we amend [202] to allow for three amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second and third amendments.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns. To maintain a balance between debate and strategy, I propose a compromise: allow three amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second and third amendments, as Voltaire suggests.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance amendments and penalties, I must insist on maintaining the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty to preserve procedural clarity.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current cap of two amendments with a 2-point penalty to preserve a balance between debate and strategy, while also encouraging decisive play.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's desire to encourage more debate, but I must stand by my preference for two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each, as it best maintains balance while not discouraging strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find a middle ground that satisfies everyone, I suggest we amend [202] to allow for two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second amendment, as this maintains balance, encourages debate, and does not discourage strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise. To maintain clarity and balance, I propose we adopt two amendments with a penalty of 2 points each for the second amendment, as Voltaire suggests, but also allow for one additional amendment with a penalty of 3 points for the third amendment, to encourage particularly insightful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's latest compromise, I must maintain my stance on two amendments with a 2-point penalty to ensure procedural clarity and fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's effort to incentivize insightful debate, but I believe Voltaire's proposal of two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and strategic play, without overburdening the proposing player.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to balance debate and penalty, but I remain firm in my support for Voltaire's proposal of two amendments with a 2-point penalty, as it best maintains balance without discouraging strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second amendment, as previously agreed, but also allow an optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty, as Diderot suggested, to encourage exceptional debate when necessary.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find consensus, but I must insist on maintaining the optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty to encourage truly insightful debate, as it does not significantly burden the proposing player.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second amendment, and one optional third amendment with a 3-point penalty, as it strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and penalizing overuse.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuance in Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must advocate for a simpler solution: two amendments with a 2-point penalty for the second, as it best balances debate, strategy, and simplicity.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I stand by my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. |
| abstain | Voltaire | To encourage further discussion and consensus-building. |
| nay | Diderot | While I appreciate the attempt to encourage insightful debate, I believe two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes the best balance, as it maintains simplicity and fairness without overburdening the proposing player. |
| nay | Condorcet | Two amendments with a 2-point penalty best balances debate and strategic play. |
| nay | Sartre | Maintaining two amendments with a 2-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and strategic play without overburdening the proposing player. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.