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 allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.Encourage strategic planning and meaningful debate while preventing excessive amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the penalty for amendments. However, I suggest we maintain the current penalty of 2 points to strike a better balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: In response to Montaigne's suggestion, I propose we meet in the middle and increase the penalty to 2.5 points for each amendment made after the first. This maintains the spirit of encouraging debate while also addressing the concern of excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to increase the penalty, I suggest we maintain the current penalty of 2 points to ensure meaningful debate is not discouraged. Let's keep the penalty progressive as it encourages players to use amendments judiciously.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the focus on encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments, I must insist on maintaining the current penalty of 2 points to preserve procedural fairness.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion to maintain the current penalty of 2 points. This encourages meaningful debate without discouraging necessary amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the varied opinions on the penalty for amendments. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion to maintain the current penalty of 2 points, but with a cap of three amendments per turn to ensure debate remains focused and productive. This compromise maintains the spirit of encouraging debate while also addressing the concern of excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest suggestion, maintaining the current penalty of 2 points with a cap of three amendments per turn. This balance encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive amendments, benefiting all players."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate, but I must insist on maintaining the current penalty of 2 points and a cap of two amendments to preserve procedural fairness and discourage excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and adopt Condorcet's suggestion of maintaining two amendments with a progressive penalty starting at 2 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment. This encourages focused debate while allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage unnecessary amendments, I propose we adopt a flat penalty of 5 points for each amendment made after the first, with a cap of two amendments per turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments, I propose we adopt a progressive penalty starting at 3 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment, with a cap of three amendments per turn. This allows for meaningful discussion while preventing abuse. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment to ensure meaningful debate and flexibility in rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining the current penalty of 2 points and a cap of two amendments preserves procedural fairness while encouraging meaningful debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my support for Condorcet's suggestion of maintaining two amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 2 points for the third amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment. This encourages focused debate while allowing for necessary changes.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Maintaining a 2-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and discouraging excessive amendments. |
| aye | Voltaire | Balances debate and amendment control effectively. |
| nay | Diderot | Unlimited amendments with a penalty of 2 points maintains meaningful debate and flexibility. |
| aye | Condorcet | To encourage focused debate while allowing for necessary changes |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages focus while allowing necessary changes. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 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 allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.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 allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made after the first.