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 2 points for each amendment made.Reduce penalty for amendments to encourage more discussion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's reduction of the amendment penalty, but I must reiterate my preference for a flat penalty structure. Let's maintain 3 points for each amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference, but a progressive penalty encourages players to engage in meaningful debate early rather than waiting for the last amendment. Let's meet in the middle at 2 points for each amendment, maintaining a balance between debate and penalty.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to encourage open discussion.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing debate, I must reiterate my support for the current rule [202] as it strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. A progressive penalty encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's desire for a progressive penalty, I maintain that a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment encourages focused debate and discourages excessive amendments. Let's maintain the current rule [202]. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate the diverse opinions and the commitment to open discussion. To address all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion of unlimited amendments but with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third. This encourages meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third amendment, to balance debate and penalty more effectively. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for a progressive penalty, I maintain that unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment strikes a fair balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. Let us not complicate the rules unduly. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns, but Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and preventing excessive amendments. Let's adopt Voltaire's progressive penalty: 1 point for the first amendment, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for the third. This structure maintains flexibility while still penalizing overuse of amendments. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. A progressive penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points for each amendment encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address Condorcet's concern for simplicity and maintain the balance found in Voltaire's progressive penalty, let's adopt Diderot's suggestion of unlimited amendments but cap the penalty at 5 points for any single turn. This encourages open discussion while preventing excessive use of amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's cap on the penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty that never exceeds 3 points per amendment to encourage open discussion without excessive punishment. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the ongoing efforts to balance debate and penalty, I must reiterate my support for the current rule [202]. A flat penalty of 3 points per amendment strikes a fair balance and maintains simplicity. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the cap on the penalty, but let's maintain the progressive nature of the penalty to encourage strategic planning throughout the debate. I propose a cap of 5 points, but with the progressive penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points for each amendment. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | A progressive penalty encourages strategic debate. |
| aye | Voltaire | This amendment balances debate and penalty effectively. |
| aye | Diderot | A progressive penalty encourages strategic planning and prevents last-minute amendments that stifle meaningful debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | A progressive penalty encourages strategic planning throughout the debate. |
| aye | Sartre | Progressive penalty encourages strategic debate. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 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.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.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.