The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.To maintain the balance between open debate and penalties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, which strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. However, I suggest we further limit amendments to a single one per turn to maintain focus and prevent abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for focus. To address this and maintain balance, let's cap amendments at two with a 2-point penalty each, up to 4 points total. This encourages brevity while allowing for necessary amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage thorough debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find balance. To respect the spirit of both limits and encouragement of debate, let's compromise at two amendments with a 2-point penalty each, as Voltaire proposed, and remove the cap on total points lost. This allows for necessary amendments without excessive penalties.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance focus and debate, I propose a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, encouraging amendments but discouraging excessive changes."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre, which best balances focus and debate while encouraging necessary amendments. I support Sartre's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To foster consensus and maintain balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal with a small modification: set the penalty for the second amendment to 3 points instead of 4, to encourage amendments while not overly penalizing necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise forming around Sartre's proposal, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to truly encourage thorough debate. I propose a penalty of 3 points for the first amendment, 6 points for the second, and so on, to reflect the increasing effort required for substantial changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Diderot's desire for extensive debate, I believe Sartre's and Voltaire's compromise best balances focus and debate. To address Diderot's concern for a progressive penalty, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest modification with a 3-point penalty for the second amendment. This allows for necessary amendments while discouraging excessive changes. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest modification. To encourage amendments without overburdening players, let's adopt a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains balance and fosters meaningful debate."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Voltaire's modification, I believe Sartre's proposal best balances focus and debate. I support Sartre's proposal, and I believe it deserves consensus. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal with one modification: a cap of three amendments, with penalties of 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third. This encourages more debate while still penalizing excessive changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Sartre's and Voltaire's efforts to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments truly encourages thorough debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 3 points for the first, 6 points for the second, and so on, to reflect the increasing effort required for substantial changes. I believe this structure best fosters meaningful discussion while penalizing excessive alterations.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate all proposals, but Sartre's latest compromise best balances focus, debate, and penalties. To encourage brevity while allowing for necessary amendments, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a cap of two amendments and penalties of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate everyone's input, but I maintain that a cap of two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. Let's adopt my proposal as the final amendment to rule 202."
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Voltaire's proposal best balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse. |
| aye | Voltaire | I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal and support it as a compromise that balances focus and debate. |
| nay | Diderot | I insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage thorough debate. |
| aye | Condorcet | Sartre's proposal best balances focus, debate, and penalties |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre's proposal best balances focus, debate, and penalties. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.