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, maintaining consensus on two amendments and a progressive penalty
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. To maintain balance and encourage focused debate, let's adopt two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise, I propose we maintain a flat penalty of 2 points for each amendment to foster simplicity and consistency.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to allow for comprehensive debate and revision. I propose a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to deter excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and fair penalty, I propose a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and fairness, I propose a progressive penalty structure: 2 points for the first amendment, and 3 points for the second, with a cap of two amendments. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing abuse.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining a clear penalty structure, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent proposals: two amendments allowed with a flat penalty of 2 points each. This maintains simplicity, encourages meaningful debate, and prevents abuse."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around two amendments with a flat penalty, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to ensure thorough debate. I propose a compromise of three amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third. This balances the need for debate and the penalty for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal for its simplicity and balance, maintaining two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around two amendments with a flat penalty, but to encourage more thoughtful amendments, I propose we maintain a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second. This way, players are incentivized to make their amendments count.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, I believe Voltaire's compromise best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. I second Voltaire's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of finding common ground, I propose a slight modification to my previous suggestion: a cap of three amendments, with a progressive penalty — 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third. This allows for some flexibility in debate while maintaining a fair penalty structure."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest modification, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to ensure thorough debate. I propose a compromise of four amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, 4 points for the third, and 5 points for the fourth. This balances the need for debate and the penalty for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I understand the desire for more amendments, maintaining a cap of two ensures a balance between debate and penalty. I support Voltaire's proposal with two amendments and a flat penalty of 2 points each.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but to truly incentivize concise and meaningful amendments, I propose we revert to a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second. This strikes a balance between open debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Voltaire's proposal balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. |
| aye | Voltaire | Voltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. |
| nay | Diderot | Unlimited amendments ensure thorough debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | Voltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. |
| aye | Sartre | Voltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 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.