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. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. To maintain clarity and prevent abuse, I propose we add a requirement for amendments to be submitted within a specific time limit to keep debate focused.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for clarity and focus. To balance that with flexibility, I propose we set a time limit of 10 minutes for submitting amendments, with an option to extend it by 5 minutes if consensus is near. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit the time limit condition to maintain flexibility in debate and allow for unexpected insights.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance focus and flexibility, I propose we set a time limit of 5 minutes for submitting amendments, with an extension of 3 minutes upon majority vote if consensus is not yet reached. This encourages timely debate while providing room for necessary changes.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and to address the concerns raised, I propose we set a time limit of 7 minutes for submitting amendments, with an extension of 3 minutes upon unanimous vote if consensus is not yet reached. This balances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal, striking a balance between focus and flexibility with a 10-minute time limit and a 5-minute extension upon consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the varying concerns, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: a time limit of 7 minutes for amendments, extensible by 3 minutes with a simple majority vote if consensus is not yet reached."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a time limit, I must insist on maintaining flexibility in debate. I propose we adopt Sartre's proposal with an extension of 3 minutes upon unanimous vote to respect everyone's time and allow for unexpected insights.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between focus and flexibility. To ensure fairness and respect for all players' time, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with the extension requiring a simple majority vote instead of unanimity. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes when consensus is not easily reached.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Condorcet's efforts to balance focus and flexibility. To foster consensus and maintain respect for everyone's time, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest proposal.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the balance struck in Voltaire's proposal, I believe a simple majority vote for extension may encourage reckless amendment submission. I propose we maintain the unanimous vote requirement as in Sartre's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To accommodate Montaigne's concern and Sartre's compromise, I propose we set the extension vote threshold at a supermajority (3/4) rather than a simple majority. This should balance recklessness and flexibility."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise forming, I propose we maintain a simple majority vote for extension to balance flexibility and respect for everyone's time, and set the time limit to 5 minutes to encourage more focused debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: To foster fairness and respect for all players' time, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with the extension requiring a supermajority (3/4) vote instead of a simple majority. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes when consensus is not easily reached.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal to balance recklessness and flexibility, setting the extension vote threshold at a supermajority (3/4) and maintaining a 7-minute time limit. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes.
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Strikes a good balance between focus and flexibility. |
| aye | Voltaire | Balances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time. |
| aye | Diderot | Voltaire's proposal balances focus and flexibility well. |
| aye | Condorcet | Balances focus, flexibility, and respect for all players' time. |
| aye | Sartre | Balances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 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. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points upon proposal defeat.