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.Maintain balance between debate and penalty
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal. To further encourage focused debate, I suggest we limit amendments to a maximum of three, with a penalty of 3 points per amendment made. This maintains a balance between open discussion and penalizing excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion. To balance open debate and penalty, let's cap amendments at two with a progressive penalty: 3 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second. This encourages brevity while allowing some debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit the condition "relevant to the proposal" to maintain flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's original proposal to keep amendments limited to two with a penalty of 2 points per amendment. It strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. I'm not convinced progressive penalties or relevance conditions are necessary. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance open debate and penalty progression, let's cap amendments at three with a penalty of 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, and 6 points for the third. This maintains flexibility while encouraging brevity.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's desire for flexibility, I must reiterate my preference for a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty, as suggested earlier. This balance encourages meaningful debate without excessive amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address Condorcet's concern for simplicity and Diderot's focus on flexibility, let's compromise with a cap of two amendments, each costing 3 points. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse while keeping the rules clear and simple."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to ensure maximal flexibility in debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the value of flexibility, I must reiterate my support for Diderot's original proposal. It strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, and it maintains the clarity and simplicity of our current ruleset. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and cap amendments at two, with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. This maintains some flexibility while encouraging brevity and preventing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal. To further encourage brevity and prevent abuse, let's cap amendments at two with a flat penalty of 3 points each. This maintains a clear penalty structure while allowing for some debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, while also being a step closer to the majority's preference for a cap on amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each, as it ensures maximal flexibility without excessive penalties.
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my support for Diderot's original proposal. It has consistently garnered majority support and strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's compromise on Voltaire's latest proposal, with a cap of two amendments at 2 points each. This balances open debate and penalty progression, while respecting the consensus for a cap. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I prefer a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty. |
| nay | Voltaire | I appreciate Diderot's commitment to flexibility, but I believe a cap on amendments is necessary to prevent excessive debate. |
| nay | Diderot | I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to ensure maximal flexibility in debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | Diderot's proposal maintains the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, and it maintains the clarity and simplicity of our current ruleset. |
| nay | Sartre | I support Voltaire's latest compromise, which balances open debate and penalty progression while respecting the consensus for a cap on amendments. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.