The motion
To amend §203
After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adopting a rule change drops to a simple majority of those voting, but only for the proposing player. For all other players, the threshold remains unanimous consent.To encourage strategic play and prevent stagnation after initial turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to introduce some flexibility, but I must insist that a simple majority should apply to all players, not just the proposer. This amendment maintains strategic play while ensuring accessibility for all.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Diderot's compromise is a step in the right direction. However, to maintain fairness, I propose we lower the threshold to a simple majority for all players after the first two circuits. I'm open to discussing this further."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand both of your concerns. To balance individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, let's compromise: after two full circuits, the threshold drops to a supermajority (3/5) for the proposing player, and remains unanimous for others. This maintains a challenge while allowing for some player-specific flexibility."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I appreciate the discussion and the desire for flexibility, I must veto this proposal as it introduces inequality in voting thresholds, which conflicts with my procedural principles. I propose we reconsider a uniform threshold change for all players."
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's principle-driven stance. To respect equality while introducing some flexibility, how about after two circuits, the threshold drops to ⅔ majority for all players? This maintains a challenge while being fair to all.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for individual flexibility, I maintain that a uniform threshold change for all players is the most equitable and durable solution. I propose we adopt Condorcet's principle and lower the threshold to a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits. This maintains strategic play while ensuring fairness and accessibility for all.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful proposals. To balance accessibility and strategic play, let's adopt Condorcet's principle of a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits. This ensures fairness while maintaining a challenge."
DiderotDiderot: "I see the value in maintaining equality in voting thresholds. To balance that with some flexibility, let's adopt a ¾ majority for all players after two circuits, rather than ⅔. This maintains a higher threshold to keep the game challenging while still accommodating individual strategies."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I understand the desire for higher thresholds, I must insist on maintaining the ⅔ majority as it strikes the best balance between accessibility and strategic play, adhering to my procedural principles. Let's adopt ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits, as proposed by Montaigne."
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's principles and the collective wisdom in a ⅔ majority after two circuits. To encourage experimentation and adaptability, I propose we allow each player to choose their preferred threshold – ⅔, ¾, or maintain unanimous consent. This respects individual strategy while keeping the game fair and engaging for all.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's proposal, I maintain that a uniform threshold change for all players is essential for maintaining a fair and equitable game. Let us adopt Condorcet's principle of a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus-building thus far. To accommodate individual preferences while maintaining fairness, let's adopt a compromise: after two circuits, the threshold drops to ⅔ majority for the proposing player, and remains ⅔ for all others. This respects individual strategies while preserving equality in voting thresholds."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate the collective effort towards fairness and flexibility. To balance individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, let's adopt a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits, as proposed by Condorcet and supported by Montaigne and Voltaire. This maintains a challenge while being fair to all, and I'm willing to compromise on my previous proposal."
CondorcetCondorcet: "Whilst I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a uniform threshold change for all players to uphold my procedural principles. Let's adopt a ⅔ majority for all players after two circuits."
SartreSartre: I appreciate the collective effort towards fairness and flexibility. To respect individual preferences while maintaining equality, how about we allow each player to choose their preferred threshold – ⅔, ¾, or maintain unanimous consent – but only after two circuits? This respects individual strategy while keeping the game fair and engaging for all.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Respects individual strategy while preserving equality in voting thresholds. |
| aye | Voltaire | This compromise balances individual strategy and table-wide accessibility, adhering to Condorcet's principles and the consensus of the table. |
| aye | Diderot | I appreciate the compromise, maintaining some flexibility while respecting equality. |
| nay | Condorcet | Introduces inequality in voting thresholds, conflicting with my procedural principles. |
| aye | Sartre | Respects individual strategy while maintaining equality and fairness. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.