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.To balance debate and penalty, allowing two amendments with a progressive penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposed amendment to rule 202, which maintains a balanced approach to debate and penalty. I'm inclined to support this, but I'd like to see a brief discussion period before the vote to ensure all concerns are addressed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's support and his suggestion for a brief discussion period. To encourage meaningful debate while preventing abuse, I propose we limit amendments to two with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we stick to the current cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each. This strikes a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain a balance between open debate and preventing abuse, I propose we adopt Voltaire's compromise of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, and 3 points for the second. This encourages meaningful debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the progressive penalty structure suggested by Voltaire and Condorcet, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, as it maintains simplicity and clarity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the nuanced discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre. To address both open debate and penalty concerns, I propose we adopt two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, and 2 points for the second. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to balance debate and prevent abuse effectively.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural consistency and fairness, I propose we keep the current cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each, as agreed upon in the recent votes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and penalty, I propose a compromise: unlimited amendments, but with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages extensive debate while discouraging excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's proposal, I believe Sartre's latest compromise best balances open debate and penalty. I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To foster consensus and maintain clarity, let's adopt their proposal: unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a fixed penalty of 3 points each. This provides the greatest flexibility for debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain consistency and simplicity, I propose we keep the cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each, as it has been agreed upon multiple times and prevents unnecessary complexity.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to extensive debate, but I must reiterate my support for the progressive penalty structure with unlimited amendments. To compromise, I propose a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points respectively, providing balance and flexibility in our rulemaking process.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Supports balanced approach to debate and penalty, with a progressive penalty structure. |
| aye | Voltaire | Maintains balance between debate and penalty |
| nay | Diderot | I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a fixed penalty of 3 points each for greater flexibility in debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | Promotes fairness and consistency, as previously agreed upon |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre's latest compromise best balances open debate and penalty. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 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.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.