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 while maintaining flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining clarity, I propose we amend rule 202 to limit amendments to one, with a penalty of 2 points for any amendment made. This balance encourages debate while preventing excessive delays.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's proposal. To further balance debate and penalties, let's keep two amendments allowed, but adjust the penalty to 5 points for the second amendment. This encourages meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance amendments and penalties, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment, and 5 points for the second. This encourages thoughtful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal as it maintains clarity, encourages thoughtful debate, and applies penalties progressively, adhering to the principle of minimal punishment for minimal transgression.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on balance and progressive penalties. To encourage both meaningful debate and timely play, let's compromise with one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 3 points. This maintains clarity and promotes efficient turns.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the focus on balance and progressive penalties, I must reiterate my preference for maintaining clarity with a single amendment allowed, at a flat penalty of 2 points. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing excessive delays and maintaining simplicity.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the diverse proposals on the table. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's progressive penalty structure with two amendments allowed: 2 points for the first amendment, and 3 points for the second. This encourages thoughtful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find consensus, I must insist on maintaining two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 5 points for the second to best balance debate and penalties.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal, as it finds a good balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also being closer to the consensus formed thus far.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the proposals made so far. To find a mutually agreeable solution, I propose a compromise: one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points. This maintains clarity, encourages debate, and promotes efficient turns.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the progressive penalty structure suggested by Voltaire and Condorcet, I must reiterate my preference for the simplicity of a flat penalty. To compromise, I propose one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points, mirroring Sartre's proposal. This maintains clarity while still encouraging meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre and Montaigne. To maintain balance and encourage timely play, let's adopt Montaigne's latest proposal: one amendment allowed at a flat penalty of 2 points, with an optional second amendment at a flat penalty of 3 points."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second, as it best balances debate and penalties while encouraging thoughtful engagement.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal, as it finds a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments, while also being closer to the consensus formed thus far, and adheres to the principles of clarity and minimal punishment. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to encouraging debate, but to promote efficiency and consensus, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, balancing one amendment with a flat penalty structure of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains clarity and fosters timely play. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Balances debate and penalties, encourages timely play. |
| aye | Voltaire | Fosters balance, encourages debate, and promotes timely play. |
| aye | Diderot | Maintains balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. |
| aye | Condorcet | This proposal balances debate and penalties, encouraging meaningful engagement while maintaining clarity. |
| aye | Sartre | Voltaire's proposal balances debate and penalties while encouraging timely play. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 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.