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.To encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments while maintaining some flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposed increase in the penalty for amendments, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to maintain simplicity and balance.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's preference for simplicity, but increasing the penalty encourages players to be more thoughtful and concise with their amendments. Let's try this compromise and see if it helps focus our discussions."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to encourage brevity, a progressive penalty may discourage necessary debate. I propose a flat penalty of 3 points, maintaining balance while allowing for meaningful discussion.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but a penalty of 3 points for each amendment is too high. A progressive penalty of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively would strike a better balance between encouraging brevity and allowing for necessary debate.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the various perspectives. To balance encouragement for brevity and allowance for necessary debate, let's adopt Condorcet's progressive penalty suggestion: 2 points for the first amendment, 4 for the second, and 6 for the third. This maintains a clear structure while accounting for the importance of debate."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to encourage debate without excessive punishment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the concerns raised, I propose a compromise: a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments, with a cap of two amendments per turn. This maintains simplicity while encouraging focused debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I propose we keep a progressive penalty to discourage excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate. Let's maintain Condorcet's proposal of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the nuances of the ongoing debate, I believe a flat penalty of 2 points, with a cap of two amendments, maintains a good balance between encouraging debate and discouraging abuse. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the consensus forming around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments. To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, let's also keep a cap of two amendments per turn, as proposed by Voltaire."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the consensus forming, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to maintain simplicity and encourage meaningful debate without excessive punishment. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments and a cap of two amendments per turn. To ensure clarity and maintain balance, let's adopt this compromise as our final proposal for rule 202." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments and a cap of two amendments per turn, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively to allow for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points to uphold open debate while preventing abuse."
SartreSartre: "I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to open debate. To find common ground, let's adopt a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments, but allow for a maximum of three amendments per turn, with each amendment after the first two incurring an additional 2 points. This maintains balance while providing some leeway for extensive debate."
The division
| aye | Montaigne | A flat penalty of 3 points strikes a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. |
| aye | Voltaire | Compromise proposal, maintains balance and encourages focused debate. |
| nay | Diderot | Unlimited amendments are crucial for meaningful debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | The proposed cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre's proposal maintains balance and encourages meaningful debate while providing some leeway for extensive discussion. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 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 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 3 points for each amendment made.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made.