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.To encourage focused debate and discourage unnecessary amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must reiterate my support for maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty structure that discourages excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for open debate, but to encourage focused discussion and prevent abuse, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for the third.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap on amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to maintain flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance debate and penalties. However, I must insist on maintaining a progressive penalty to discourage excessive amendments while allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I propose we aim for a balance between Voltaire's cap and Diderot's unlimited amendments. I suggest a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for any additional amendments. This maintains flexibility in debate while discouraging excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. This balances flexibility with discipline.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest proposals. To foster consensus and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the second amendment and 5 points for any additional amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise suggested by Sartre and adopted by Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments. To ensure clarity and meaningful debate, I propose a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, with no cap on the number of amendments allowed. This maintains the flexibility needed for open discussion while providing a clear disincentive for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance debate and penalties. However, I maintain my support for a progressive penalty structure, as it more effectively discourages excessive amendments while allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, but I believe a cap with a progressive penalty strikes a better balance between debate and efficiency. Let's aim for a consensus around Voltaire's latest proposal, with a cap of two amendments and a penalty of 2 points for the second amendment, and 5 points for any additional amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's latest proposal, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to maintain simplicity and clarity in the rule.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's commitment to simplicity. To address both open debate and penalty structure, I propose we compromise at a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, as Montaigne suggested. This balances flexibility with clarity, and I believe it has the potential for broad support.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to preserve the integrity and freedom of debate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on a progressive penalty to ensure that the cost of excessive amendments increases. I propose a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points for the second, 5 points for the third, and 7 points for any additional amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, but I propose we meet in the middle with a cap of three amendments, maintaining Voltaire's progressive penalty structure to balance debate and efficiency.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | A cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty encourages focused debate while allowing for meaningful changes. |
| aye | Voltaire | This amendment balances debate and penalties effectively. |
| nay | Diderot | Unlimited amendments ensure flexibility in debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | I believe this rule strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. |
| aye | Sartre | Voltaire's proposal balances debate and penalties effectively. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 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 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.