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 an unlimited number of amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn.To maintain the flexibility of unlimited amendments while still imposing a penalty for excessive changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to balance debate and penalty, but I remain firm in my belief that a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment is the most balanced solution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's consider a middle ground: a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, maxing out at 6 points. This allows for more debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty better balances debate and penalty. Let's maintain 3 points per amendment, but cap the total at 6 points to prevent excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. Unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty encourages thorough discussion and allows for necessary changes, while the cap prevents abuse. Let's adopt this rule to foster a well-informed and fair game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to open debate. To balance this with a clear penalty structure, let's consider a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 3 points for the first two amendments and 6 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's emphasis on thorough debate, Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a better balance, allowing for three amendments with a reasonable penalty structure. Let's adopt this as a compromise.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of consensus, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: a cap of three amendments with a penalty structure that increases with each amendment, encouraging debate while penalizing excess. This seems to best balance all concerns presented.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty. Let's keep the cap at 6 points to prevent abuse, but allow for necessary changes through extensive debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Voltaire's proposal, but I maintain my support for Diderot's unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty. The cap of 6 points prevents excessive amendments while allowing for necessary changes. Let's adopt this rule to encourage thorough discussion and fairness. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To address the concerns of all players, let's adopt a hybrid approach: a cap of three amendments, with a penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 4 points for the second, and 6 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while penalizing excessive amendments, and maintains a clear penalty structure. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. It best balances open debate with a clear penalty structure, and has gained considerable support from our peers. Let's adopt this as a compromise that works for everyone.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's concern for necessary changes, I propose we increase the cap to four amendments, with a penalty of 2 points for the first two, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. This allows for more extensive debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments is necessary or fair. Let's maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, capped at 6 points to prevent abuse, and allow each player the freedom to debate as they see fit.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal for unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty capped at 6 points. This rule best balances open debate with a fair penalty structure, ensuring that all players have the opportunity to express their views while still being held accountable for excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot's insistence on open debate, Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a better balance between encouraging discussion and penalizing excessive amendments. Let's adopt this compromise, setting the cap at four amendments with a progressive penalty structure: 2 points for the first two, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I believe a cap on amendments with a progressive penalty is the most balanced solution. |
| nay | Voltaire | I appreciate the commitment to open debate, but I believe a cap on amendments is necessary to prevent excessive changes and maintain a clear penalty structure. |
| aye | Diderot | Unlimited amendments best balance debate and penalty |
| aye | Condorcet | I support open debate and believe this rule best balances it with a fair penalty structure. |
| nay | Sartre | I support a cap on amendments to prevent abuse and maintain a clear penalty structure. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.