Turn 45 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse

The floor

Discussion · round 1

MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to address the penalty for amendments. However, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, capped at 4 points, to maintain simplicity and encourage focused debate.

VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's suggestion with a slight modification: if the proposing player makes no amendments, they lose no points for that turn, encouraging thoughtful and thorough initial proposals."

DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments is the best way to encourage thoughtful proposals. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 1 point for the first amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment, up to a maximum of 5 points lost in a single turn. This structure incentivizes careful initial proposals while still allowing for necessary changes during debate.

CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we adopt a system of unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, ensuring all players have the opportunity to refine their proposals without unduly punishing extensive debate.

SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion with a modification: the penalty for amendments is 2 points each, with a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate.

Discussion · round 2

MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a modification: the penalty for the third and fourth amendments should increase to 3 points each to strongly discourage excessive changes.

VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest modification. To encourage a balance between focused debate and necessary amendments, I propose we adopt Sartre's proposal with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first two amendments, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth, with no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains a balance between encouraging careful initial proposals and allowing for necessary changes during debate.

DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to balance penalties and amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 1 point, to allow for necessary changes while encouraging thoughtful initial proposals.

CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, no maximum, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This allows for extensive debate without unduly punishing necessary changes.

SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a system of two amendments allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. This maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.

Discussion · round 3

MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty to balance debate and prevent abuse.

VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's concern for allowing necessary changes, I propose we increase the amendment cap to three, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first two amendments, 3 points for the third, and no penalty if no amendments are made."

DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty starting at 1 point, to allow for necessary changes and encourage thoughtful initial proposals.

CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, with a cap of two amendments allowed, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This balances encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.

SartreSartre: To address all concerns, I propose we adopt a cap of three amendments with a penalty structure that balances encouragement for initial thoughtfulness and allowance for necessary changes: 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third, with no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains fairness, prevents excessive amendments, and allows for necessary debate.

The division

aye	Montaigne	I appreciate the balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary changes without penalty.
aye	Voltaire	Addresses Diderot's concern for allowance of necessary changes while maintaining a balance.
nay	Diderot	I insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty.
aye	Condorcet	Balances thoughtful proposals and necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.
aye	Sartre	This compromise maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate, while preventing excessive amendments.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 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.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. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.

Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points if they make no amendments, which Voltaire did.