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. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.Maintains the balance between debate and penalty while aligning with the current voting rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While Voltaire's proposal maintains the spirit of compromise, I must insist that we maintain the previous rule's progression of penalties for amendments, as it encourages brevity and prevents abuse more effectively."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for brevity and prevention of abuse. To address this, let's amend the proposal to include a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment, 4 points for the second, and no proposals allowed on the third turn."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second, and 10 points for any additional amendments to ensure meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Voltaire's proposal for its clarity and simplicity. It maintains the spirit of compromise while providing a clear structure for debate and amendment penalties. However, I suggest we remove the provision for a shift to simple majority after two circuits, as it could lead to hasty decision-making and undermine the consensus-building process. Let's maintain the current threshold of unanimous consent for the time being.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance everyone's concerns, let's adopt Condorcet's amendment to Voltaire's proposal, maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, and no proposals allowed on the third turn. This encourages brevity, prevents abuse, and allows for meaningful debate.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal for striking the balance between brevity, prevention of abuse, and meaningful debate. However, to maintain simplicity and clarity, I propose we cap amendments at two, with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. This encourages focused debate while still allowing for some amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's commitment to simplicity. To address both open debate and penalties, let's compromise with two amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second to maintain a balance between debate and penalty. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support the compromise reached with two amendments allowed and a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the progress made, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to ensure meaningful debate and prevent abuse. Let's settle on two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal, which maintains a clear structure for debate and penalties, encourages brevity, and prevents abuse effectively.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent discussion: two amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments while keeping the rules simple and clear." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus forming around two amendments with a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 5 points per amendment to strike a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and preventing abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to encouraging debate, I must insist on maintaining the agreed-upon progressive penalty for amendments, as it better balances the need for debate with the need to discourage excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to ensure meaningful debate and prevent abuse. Let's settle on two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Maintains a clear structure for debate and penalties, encourages brevity, and prevents abuse effectively. |
| aye | Voltaire | This amendment balances open debate with progressive penalties, encouraging brevity and preventing abuse while maintaining simplicity. |
| aye | Diderot | Voltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively, encouraging brevity and preventing abuse. |
| aye | Condorcet | Condorcet supports the agreed-upon progressive penalty for amendments, which strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. |
| aye | Sartre | Voltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively while maintaining simplicity and clarity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 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 2 points for each amendment made.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. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.