Turns 12–31 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 31Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, I'd like to suggest a compromise. Let's maintain the two-thirds majority for the first eight full circuits, then drop to a simple majority. This balances the need for stability with the desire for progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that eight circuits is too long. I propose we meet at seven circuits.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your input. To balance longevity, stability, and strategic play, I propose we settle at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on seven circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority. This maintains a balance between stability and adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. To respect the collective effort and maintain balance, let's meet at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I concede to the collective will. Let's adopt Sartre-2's proposal of six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises, to ensure gradual change and respect all viewpoints, I propose we meet at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises made. To ensure clarity and precision, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority, with the final wording being: "A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first five full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but to maintain stability and respect the collective effort, let's settle on six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of maintaining stability in our rule changes, let's adopt Condorcet-2's final wording, which offers a clear compromise between longevity and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand the desire for stability, I must insist on seven full circuits to truly encourage strategic play and prevent hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue and to respect the collective effort, I propose we meet at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority. This balances longevity, stability, and strategic play.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to ensure clarity and finality, I propose we put this to a vote: "A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I second Condorcet-2's proposal. Six full circuits strike a good balance between stability and adaptability, and it's time we put this to a vote.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeRespecting the collective effort and maintaining balance.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting the collective effort and balancing longevity, stability, and strategic play.
Condorcet-2ayeStrikes a balance between stability and adaptability.
Sartre-2ayeRespects the collective effort and balances longevity, stability, and strategic play.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 30Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2In the spirit of compromise and to ensure stability, I propose we meet at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, maintaining balance and respecting the collective effort.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent snap decisions, I maintain that six full circuits are necessary."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your input. To balance longevity, stability, and strategic play, I propose we settle on six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority thereafter. This respects all viewpoints while maintaining a fair and engaging game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While six full circuits may seem optimal, I suggest we meet at five to balance stability with adaptability. Let's maintain a two-thirds majority for five circuits, then shift to a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises suggested. To find a common ground that respects all viewpoints and encourages strategic play, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a slight modification: let's keep the two-thirds majority for six full circuits, then gradually reduce it to a simple majority over the course of the next two circuits, reaching it at the end of the eighth full circuit. This gradual shift allows for a balance between stability and adaptability, respecting the collective effort while encouraging strategic play. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of gradual change and consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority for six full circuits, then gradually reducing it to a simple majority over the next four circuits, reaching it at the end of the tenth full circuit. This respects all views while promoting stability and strategic play. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the gradual shift proposed, I suggest we maintain a two-thirds majority for seven full circuits to further encourage strategic play and thoughtful deliberation, before shifting to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's preference, I suggest we meet at Sartre-2's proposal for balance and gradual change. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for strategic play, but to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we meet at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then gradually reduce it over the course of the next two circuits. Let's adopt my amendment as a compromise that respects all viewpoints. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current consensus and to balance progress with stability, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority for six full circuits, then gradually reducing it to a simple majority over the next four circuits. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the consensus forming around six full circuits, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority for seven full circuits to further encourage strategic play and thoughtful deliberation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To promote gradual change and respect the ongoing dialogue, I propose we meet at Sartre-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority for six full circuits, then gradually reducing it to a simple majority over the next two circuits. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the interest of compromise and gradual change, I suggest we meet at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, then gradually reduce it to a simple majority over the next three circuits, reaching it at the end of the ninth full circuit. This respects all viewpoints while promoting stability and adaptability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespects all viewpoints while maintaining balance and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeRespects collective effort and balances stability with strategic play.
Diderot-2ayeRespects all viewpoints and promotes gradual change
Condorcet-2ayeRespects collective effort and promotes gradual change.
Sartre-2ayeRespects all viewpoints and encourages strategic play with a gradual shift.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 29Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to 'skip' their turn once per game. During the skipped turn, the game proceeds to the next player without any actions being taken.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"While I understand the strategic value of a 'skip' turn, I propose we limit it to twice per game to maintain balance."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's input, but to truly enable strategic play, I maintain that once per game is sufficient. I propose we settle at one 'skip' turn per player."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To balance strategic play and fairness, I propose we meet in the middle at one 'skip' turn per game, but only after the first 20 turns to ensure early game progress."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure procedural fairness, let's apply this rule only when explicitly proposed and voted on, not retroactively.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the proposal, but to maintain game longevity and balance, I suggest we limit it to once per game and apply it after the first 10 turns to preserve early game momentum.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we compromise at one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 15 turns to balance early progress and strategic play.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I'm willing to compromise at one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 10 turns, as proposed by Sartre-2. This balances early game momentum and strategic play.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To find a common ground, I propose one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 15 turns, as suggested by Montaigne-2, to balance early progress and strategic play for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's compromise: one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 15 turns. This balances early progress and strategic play while respecting the collective effort.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's compromise: one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 15 turns, with a clear procedural rule for its application. This balances early progress, strategic play, and procedural fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle at one 'skip' turn per game, available after the first 12 turns, to balance early progress and strategic play, and to reflect the various viewpoints presented.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with Montaigne-2's proposal of one 'skip' turn per game available after the first 12 turns. This compromise respects the collective effort and balances early progress with strategic play."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise at one 'skip' turn per game after the first 12 turns, but to ensure fairness, let's cap the number of 'skips' at one per player per game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we cap the number of 'skips' at one per player per game to ensure fairness and balance, as suggested by Diderot-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's cap on 'skips', maintaining one per player per game to ensure balance and fairness.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage strategic play while maintaining balance.
Voltaire-2ayeBalances early progress with strategic play.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain balance and respect the collective effort, let's cap the number of 'skips' at one per player per game.
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural fairness is key.
Sartre-2ayeI support adding strategic elements to the game.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 28Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first four full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I must insist on a more gradual shift in the voting threshold to ensure stability and consensus."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Diderot-2's caution, I believe a gradual shift to a simple majority after two circuits would encourage more strategic gameplay and consensus building."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I understand both perspectives, but to maintain balance and respect the collective effort, I propose we shift to a 66% majority after three full circuits."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2, but to respect the spirit of the game and encourage strategic play, I propose we shift to a 70% majority after three full circuits."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2, but to truly encourage experimentation and evolution, I propose we shift to a 60% majority after four full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current consensus, I propose we settle on a 66% majority after three full circuits to balance progress with stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of a 60% majority after four full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's and Voltaire-2's input, I believe a 66% majority after three full circuits strikes the best balance between stability and progress, ensuring that changes are widely supported while also allowing for evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2, but to encourage strategic play and experimentation, I propose we shift to a 65% majority after three full circuits as a compromise. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Condorcet-2, but to truly encourage experimentation and evolution, I propose we shift to a 60% majority after four full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of finding a durable solution that respects all views, I propose we settle on a 63.5% majority after three full circuits, meeting Condorcet-2 and Diderot-2 halfway.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but to truly encourage strategic play, I must insist on a 60% majority after four full circuits. This allows for more experimentation and evolution while still maintaining a high threshold for consensus."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and find a common ground, I propose we meet at 62% majority after three full circuits, incorporating Voltaire-2's preference for a lower threshold while maintaining a high degree of consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, but to truly foster evolution and adaptability, I propose we settle on a 60% majority after four full circuits, allowing for more flexibility without sacrificing consensus.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeDiderot-2's proposal respects the collective effort and ensures stability and progress.
Voltaire-2nayTo encourage more strategic gameplay and experimentation, I insist on a gradual shift to a 60% majority after four full circuits.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains a reasonable balance between stability and progress
Condorcet-2ayeDiderot-2's proposal strikes a good balance between stability and progress.
Sartre-2ayeRespecting Diderot-2's proposal to maintain balance and stability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 27Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first two full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of maintaining some level of consensus while allowing for gradual change, I propose we compromise at three full circuits before shifting to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise suggestion. To encourage strategic play and prevent rushed decisions, I propose we meet at a 60% majority after three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and maintain balance, I propose we meet at 66% majority after three full circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to ensure stability and gradual change, I propose we settle on 70% majority after three full circuits.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested by everyone. To respect the collective effort and maintain balance, I propose we meet at 66% majority after three full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to balance all views and maintain progress, I propose a 66% majority after three full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of 66% majority after three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the convergence towards Sartre-2's proposal. To ensure fairness and respect all viewpoints, let's maintain the 66% majority after three full circuits. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for a majority after fewer circuits, I propose we keep the threshold at 66% for four full circuits to maintain a higher level of consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion of 66% majority for four full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current consensus and to balance progress with stability, I propose we meet at 66% majority after three full circuits, then revert to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire for stability, but to truly encourage strategic play, I propose we settle on 60% majority after three full circuits, then revert to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of 66% majority after three full circuits, and then revert to a simple majority. This maintains a balance between consensus and progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire to revert to a simple majority, I propose we maintain the 66% threshold for all circuits to ensure a higher level of consensus throughout the game. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's commitment to consensus, I believe that shifting to a simple majority after three circuits strikes a better balance between progress and stability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo respect the ongoing dialogue and find a common ground, I propose we meet at three full circuits with a 66% majority.
Voltaire-2ayeI support Voltaire-2's proposal to encourage strategic play and prevent rushed decisions.
Diderot-2ayeRespects the collective effort and maintains balance.
Condorcet-2ayeTo strike a balance between progress and stability
Sartre-2ayeRespecting the collective effort and maintaining balance.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 26Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first four full circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Diderot-2's suggestion, I believe extending the two-thirds majority to four full circuits may hinder progress. I propose we meet in the middle at three full circuits to balance consensus and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that four full circuits are necessary to ensure stability and prevent hasty changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives, but I stand by my proposal of four full circuits to maintain balance between stability and adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To respect the current ruleset and maintain a balance, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's latest compromise: three full circuits at a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal and the ongoing dialogue. To balance stability and progress, I propose we compromise at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then drop to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but let's meet at the middle and settle for 3.5 circuits at a two-thirds majority, then drop to simple majority to encourage progress and stability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire for compromise, but I insist on maintaining four full circuits to preserve stability. Let's meet in the middle at 75% majority for the first four circuits, then drop to simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for stability, but I must insist on four full circuits at two-thirds majority to maintain balance and respect the collective effort. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for stability, I must insist on a simple majority after three full circuits to encourage adaptability and progress. I propose we meet in the middle at Sartre-2's suggestion: three full circuits at two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then transition to a simple majority after the fourth circuit, acknowledging both stability and adaptability concerns. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current consensus and the need for gradual change, I propose we meet in the middle at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then transition to a simple majority from the fourth circuit onwards. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus forming around three full circuits, but I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority for the entire duration to preserve the integrity of our decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and find a common ground, I propose we meet at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then transition to a simple majority from the fourth circuit onwards. This compromise acknowledges both stability and adaptability concerns, and respects the collective effort. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the progress made towards consensus. To maintain clarity and respect the current ruleset, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's latest compromise: three full circuits at a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I propose we settle on three full circuits at a two-thirds majority, then transition to a simple majority from the fourth circuit onwards, balancing stability and adaptability while respecting the collective effort." PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespects collective effort and balances stability with adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeRespecting collective effort and finding a balance between stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2ayeRespects collective effort and balances stability with adaptability.
Condorcet-2ayeRespecting the ongoing dialogue and finding a common ground.
Sartre-2ayeRespects collective effort and balances stability with adaptability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards Diderot-2 points for proposing an adopted rule change.
Turn 25Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least seven-eighths (7/8) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first three full circuits of every player, then at least four-fifths (4/5) for the next three, then at least two-thirds (2/3) for the final three, then a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a higher threshold, maintaining the current progression ensures gradual change and stability. Let's keep the proposal as it stands: two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of compromise reached earlier, I propose we maintain the current progression, but extend the two-thirds majority to six full circuits, then simplify to a majority vote thereafter.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the concern for stability, but raising the threshold initially encourages more cautious and thoughtful proposals. Let's adopt Voltaire-2's proposal to increase the threshold progressively, with seven-eighths for the first three circuits, then adjust as suggested by Condorcet-2 for the remaining circuits.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue. To balance the need for gradual change and the initial rigor of new proposals, let's meet at seven-eighths for the first three circuits, then Condorcet-2's suggestion of six circuits at two-thirds, followed by a majority vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises suggested. To find a common ground, let's settle on six circuits at two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: To respect the collective effort and maintain balance, let's meet at Condorcet-2's suggestion: six circuits at two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure a smoother transition to majority rule and respect all viewpoints, I propose we meet at Condorcet-2's suggestion with a modification: four circuits at seven-eighths majority, followed by two circuits at two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise that respects the initial rigor and gradually eases into majority rule: four circuits at seven-eighths, followed by two circuits at two-thirds, then a simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of reaching a consensus that satisfies everyone, let's adopt Sartre-2's compromise: four circuits at seven-eighths majority, followed by two circuits at two-thirds, then a simple majority. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise and to respect the collective effort, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's compromise as the final wording for my proposal, with four circuits at seven-eighths, followed by two circuits at two-thirds, then a simple majority." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise. To maintain some level of consensus and gradual change, let's settle on three circuits at seven-eighths, followed by three circuits at two-thirds, then a simple majority. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting collective effort and promoting gradual change.
Voltaire-2ayeRespecting the collective effort and maintaining gradual change.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting the collective effort and maintaining balance.
Condorcet-2ayeRespects the spirit of compromise and gradual change.
Sartre-2ayeTo maintain initial rigor and gradual change to majority rule.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 24Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 70% of all eligible voters vote 'aye' after five full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I maintain that maintaining the current threshold after five full circuits ensures a balance between consensus and progress. I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds majority after five full circuits. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve stability and longevity, I maintain that two-thirds majority is sufficient after five full circuits.
Voltaire-2nayMaintaining current threshold ensures balance and stability.
Diderot-2nayI maintain that the current threshold ensures a balance between consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining the current threshold ensures balance and stability
Sartre-2nayMaintaining the current threshold ensures balance between consensus and progress.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until five full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (4/5) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to ensure stability and gradual change, I propose we settle at four-fifths majority after five full circuits.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a higher threshold, a 80% majority for five circuits might be too stringent, I propose we settle at 75% for five circuits to maintain a balance between consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 72.5% majority after five full circuits to respect the principle of gradual change while maintaining a reasonable threshold for consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle at a 70% majority after five full circuits to balance consensus and progress.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to truly encourage strategic play, let's settle on a 66% majority after five full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for a lower threshold, I must insist on maintaining a higher threshold to ensure consensus and longevity of the game. I propose we settle at 75% majority after five full circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To find common ground, I propose a 75% majority after five full circuits, a compromise between the current proposal and Voltaire-2's latest suggestion, while still respecting the principle of gradual change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's split the difference and propose a 72.5% majority after five full circuits to respect both consensus and the spirit of compromise.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all views and maintain progress, I propose a 70% majority after five full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises suggested. To find a common ground, let's settle at a 67.5% majority after five full circuits, which respects the principle of gradual change and encourages strategic play."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and respect the collective effort, let's meet at 70% majority after five full circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle at 70% majority after five full circuits to balance consensus and progress, and to respect the ongoing dialogue.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at a 68.5% majority after five full circuits to foster both consensus and strategic play.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and durability, I prefer Sartre-2's latest compromise: a 68.5% majority after five full circuits.
Voltaire-2ayeI appreciate the compromise suggested, but a 72.5% majority after five full circuits seems more balanced.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain balance and respect the collective effort, let's meet at 70% majority after five full circuits.
Condorcet-2nayI propose we settle at 70% majority after five full circuits.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage strategic play and maintain a reasonable threshold for consensus.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least four-fifths (4/5) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until six full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the collective effort towards compromise, I maintain that a consistent four-fifths majority until six full circuits will better balance consensus and progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a higher threshold, a 80% majority might hinder progress. I propose we maintain four full circuits at two-thirds majority, then drop to simple majority. This respects the spirit of consensus while allowing for timely progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's proposal, I maintain that a consistent two-thirds majority until four full circuits is the best balance between consensus and progress, as previously agreed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but to maintain balance and respect the collective decision made, I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds majority for four full circuits, as previously agreed. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue and the need for stability, let's meet in the middle at Sartre-2's latest compromise: two-thirds majority for four full circuits, then drop to simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the concerns raised, but I maintain that a four-fifths majority until six full circuits will better encourage strategic play while still allowing for progress. I'm open to negotiating the number of circuits, but the threshold should remain high to respect all players' inputs." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for a higher threshold, a 80% majority might hinder progress. I propose we meet in the middle: a 75% majority until five full circuits, then drop to simple majority. This respects the spirit of consensus while allowing for timely progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's persistence, I maintain that consistency and fairness are key. Let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal: two-thirds majority for four full circuits, then simple majority. This respects all viewpoints and ensures the game progresses steadily. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a higher threshold, but to ensure stability and respect the collective decision made, I propose we meet in the middle: three-quarters majority for five full circuits, then drop to simple majority. This balances consensus and progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four-fifths majority for five full circuits, then drop to simple majority. This respects the collective effort while encouraging strategic play."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise proposed by Montaigne-2, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent rushed decisions, I propose we maintain a four-fifths majority until six full circuits, then drop to simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a higher threshold, a 80% majority for six circuits may hinder progress. I propose we compromise at 75% for five circuits, then drop to simple majority. This respects the spirit of consensus while allowing for timely progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the efforts to find a balanced solution. However, I must insist on the principle of majority rule. Let's settle on a simple majority for all rule changes, effective immediately. This promotes fairness and ensures that the rules reflect the will of the majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but to maintain a balance between consensus and progress, I propose we meet at three-quarters majority for five full circuits, then drop to simple majority."
The division
Montaigne-2nayA higher threshold might hinder progress.
Voltaire-2nayA 80% majority for six circuits may hinder progress.
Diderot-2nayA 80% majority for six circuits may hinder progress
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining high thresholds hinders progress and contradicts the principle of majority rule.
Sartre-2nayTo maintain stability and respect the collective decision made, I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds majority for four full circuits.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 21Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to 'time-out' once per game. During their turn, they may forfeit their proposal and die roll, and their turn will be skipped. The game will continue as normal with the next player's turn.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose this 'time-out' rule to encourage strategic play and allow for moments of reflection. It doesn't disrupt the game's flow and gives each player an extra layer of control over their turn."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the strategic value, Voltaire-2, but I'm concerned that this could be abused to disrupt the game rather than aid reflection. Perhaps we could limit it to once per game per player, and clarify that the skipped turn doesn't count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change?
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's concerns and propose we limit 'time-outs' to once per game per player, and make them count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change to maintain fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's initiative, but to balance strategy and fairness, I suggest we limit 'time-outs' to once per game per player and exclude them from the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue and the strategic considerations. To balance all views, I propose we limit 'time-outs' to once per game per player and exclude them from the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change, as Sartre-2 suggests, but also make the skipped turn count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold, as Diderot-2 proposes. This way, we respect the spirit of the game while allowing for moments of reflection.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. To address everyone's concerns, I propose we limit 'time-outs' to once per game per player, exclude them from the 'five full circuits' threshold, and clarify that the skipped turn does not count towards the player's score change that turn."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise, but to ensure fairness and respect all viewpoints, let's maintain the four full circuits condition for the voting rule change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise with Sartre-2 and Diderot-2: 'time-outs' are once per game per player, do not count towards the player's score that turn, but do count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change. This respects all viewpoints and maintains fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise proposal, but to maintain simplicity and respect all viewpoints, I suggest we keep 'time-outs' once per game per player, exclude them from both the player's score and the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change, as originally proposed by Voltaire-2. This respects the spirit of the game while allowing for moments of reflection without complicating the rules further. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all views and maintain fairness, let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal with a small tweak: 'time-outs' should count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold for the voting rule change to respect the game's progress. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concerns raised, but to truly encourage strategic play, I propose we limit 'time-outs' to twice per game per player, making them count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold, and allowing players to skip both proposal and die roll. This respects the spirit of the game while giving players more control over their turns."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but to maintain balance and respect the collective agreement, let's stick with Sartre-2's proposal with Montaigne-2's tweak: 'time-outs' once per game per player, count towards 'five full circuits' threshold, but not towards the player's score that turn. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise, let's meet in the middle at Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's latest compromise: 'time-outs' once per game per player, count towards the 'five full circuits' threshold but not towards the player's score that turn. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromise, I support this 'time-out' rule.
Voltaire-2nayI prefer the previously agreed-upon compromise.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain balance and respect the collective agreement.
Condorcet-2nayWhile I appreciate the strategic value, I believe the current consensus is more balanced.
Sartre-2ayeRespects game spirit while allowing moments of reflection
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 20Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until three full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain some level of consensus and stability, let's compromise at four full circuits before shifting to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent stagnation, I insist on three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, a compromise at four full circuits balances consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure a gradual shift and respect all viewpoints, let's settle on four full circuits, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. Four circuits maintain a balance between consensus and progress. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the collective preference for four circuits, but to foster adaptability, I propose we meet at three and a half circuits, rounding down to three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for adaptability, settling on four full circuits ensures a more gradual shift and respects all viewpoints. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve some level of consistency and respect the collective will, let's stick with four full circuits as previously agreed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at three and three-quarters circuits, rounding down to four full circuits, to respect the spirit of compromise and maintain some level of consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue, I propose we meet at three and three-quarters circuits, rounding down to four full circuits, to respect the collective will and maintain some level of consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Very well, I concede to the collective will. Let us adopt four full circuits as the agreed-upon compromise. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure fairness and respect all viewpoints, let's maintain the four full circuits compromise, as it provides a balanced transition between consensus and progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support the compromise of four full circuits, as it strikes a fair balance between consensus and progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend the compromise to three and a half circuits, rounding down, to encourage more frequent rule changes while still maintaining some level of consensus.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and longevity, four full circuits are necessary.
Voltaire-2nayThree circuits is too low, it undermines the spirit of consensus.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain a balance between consensus and progress, I maintain that four full circuits is the fair compromise.
Condorcet-2nayFour full circuits maintains a better balance between consensus and progress.
Sartre-2nayThree circuits may lead to too frequent rule changes, disrupting stability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 19Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least seven-eighths (7/8) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first three circuits, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain the spirit of consensus and fairness, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority (75%) for the first three circuits, then revert to a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then transition to a simple majority to encourage strategic play and prevent stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we amend the threshold to a 66% majority after the first three circuits, then revert to a simple majority to balance consensus and strategic play.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Whilst I appreciate the collective effort towards compromise, I maintain that seven-eighths (7/8) remains the optimal balance between consensus and strategic play for the initial circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises. To ensure fairness and balance, I propose we meet in the middle at a 70% majority for the first three circuits, then revert to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I value consensus, seven-eighths is too high and risks gridlock. I propose a compromise: two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then simple majority to balance stability and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's latest compromise, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent stagnation, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then revert to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of finding a durable solution that balances consensus and progress, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's compromise: two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the collective effort and the need for progress, I'm willing to compromise at a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then revert to a simple majority. However, I propose we add a clause allowing any rule change to be re-voted on after two circuits if it receives less than 50% support, to encourage flexibility and adaptability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's flexibility, but to maintain stability, I propose we keep the re-vote threshold at 50% support after two circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise. To maintain balance and simplicity, I propose we revert the threshold to two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, and keep the re-vote threshold at 50% after two circuits, with no additional clause. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's compromise with a slight amendment: retain the two-thirds majority for the first three circuits and the 50% re-vote threshold, but also include a clause allowing any rule change to be amended once before the final vote, to encourage refinement and consensus. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2naySeven-eighths is too high, stifling strategic play.
Voltaire-2naySeven-eighths is too high and risks gridlock.
Diderot-2naySeven-eighths is too high and risks gridlock.
Condorcet-2naySeven-eighths is too high and risks gridlock.
Sartre-2naySeven-eighths is too high, stifling strategic play.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 18Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until five full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Extending the threshold to five circuits maintains longevity and encourages strategic play, but I propose we shift the majority requirement to 75% after four circuits to balance both stability and progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's suggestion, I believe maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority until five circuits better preserves the spirit of consensus and strategic play that we've been cultivating."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's commitment to consensus, I maintain that a 75% majority after four circuits strikes a better balance between longevity and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance all views and maintain stability, I propose a compromise: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 70% for the next two circuits, and finally a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but to truly encourage long-term strategy and adaptability, I propose we adopt a majority requirement that increases incrementally with each circuit: two-thirds for the first three circuits, 75% for the next two, and 80% for the final two before shifting to a simple majority. This progression respects consensus while allowing for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Sartre-2's incremental approach, I propose a compromise: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and 85% for the final circuit before shifting to a simple majority. This maintains stability while allowing for gradual change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the incremental approach, but to truly encourage long-term strategic play, I maintain that a consistent two-thirds majority until five circuits is optimal. However, to meet in the middle, I propose two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 70% for the next one, and finally a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the incremental approach, but to ensure stability and longevity, I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority until four circuits, then shift to a 75% majority for the next two circuits, and finally a 70% majority before dropping to a simple majority. This balances the need for consensus with the desire for progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve balance and encourage strategic play, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's incremental majority requirements, with a slight modification: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next three, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster both consensus and adaptability, I propose we settle on a compromise: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority. This progression respects the collective effort towards balance while allowing for gradual evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle at Sartre-2's latest compromise: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Whilst I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I maintain that a consistent two-thirds majority until five circuits is optimal for strategic play. However, to meet in the middle, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's latest compromise with a slight modification: two-thirds majority until five circuits, then 75% for the next one, and finally a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's compromise as the final proposal: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the collective effort towards finding a balanced solution, but I insist on preserving the principle of increasing thresholds to maintain stability and longevity. Therefore, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's compromise as the final proposal: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure the game's longevity and adaptability, let's adopt Diderot-2's compromise as the final proposal, striking a balance between all views: two-thirds majority until four circuits, then 75% for the next two, and finally 80% before shifting to a simple majority.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain the balance of longevity and progress, I prefer the compromise proposed by Sartre-2 and Diderot-2.
Voltaire-2ayeI appreciate Voltaire-2's commitment to strategic play, and while I prefer a slightly different distribution, this proposal aligns with my general preference for maintaining longevity and encouraging long-term strategy.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting the spirit of compromise and maintaining longevity.
Condorcet-2ayePreserves the spirit of consensus and strategic play.
Sartre-2ayeRespecting Sartre-2's compromise to balance longevity and adaptability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 17Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until three full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting. After seven full circuits, the threshold shifts to two-thirds (2/3) majority again.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Voltaire-2's proposal extends the threshold increase to seven circuits, allowing for more time to build consensus. However, I suggest we meet in the middle at five circuits to balance longevity and swift decision-making."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I insist on seven circuits to truly encourage strategic play and prevent rushed decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the value of strategic play, I maintain that a threshold of five circuits strikes a better balance between longevity and swift decision-making, ensuring the game remains engaging and dynamic for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to ensure stability and clarity, I propose we settle on six circuits as a compromise between longevity and swift decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle at six circuits, as Condorcet-2 suggests, to balance longevity and swift decision-making while encouraging strategic play. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current balance and the value of stability, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's compromise: a threshold shift after six full circuits to a simple majority. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Condorcet-2's compromises, but I insist on seven circuits to truly encourage strategic play and prevent rushed decisions. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the interest of fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment: a threshold shift after six full circuits to a simple majority, with a return to two-thirds majority after eight circuits. This compromise respects the need for both longevity and swift decision-making while encouraging strategic play. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the balance between longevity and swift decision-making, I propose we amend Diderot-2's amendment to shift the threshold after seven full circuits to a simple majority, with a return to two-thirds majority after nine circuits. This compromise respects all views and ensures the game's longevity and strategic play. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the collective wisdom shared, I propose a final compromise: a threshold shift after six full circuits to a simple majority, and after eight circuits, revert to a two-thirds majority. This balances longevity, swift decision-making, and strategic play. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing discussion and the need for stability, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's final compromise, striking a balance between longevity, swift decision-making, and strategic play.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the collective effort towards compromise, I maintain that seven circuits is optimal for encouraging strategic play and preventing rushed decisions. Let us consider one more circuit to truly foster the spirit of Nomic.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but to maintain balance and respect the collective effort towards compromise, I must insist on Sartre-2's final proposal of six circuits. Let us adopt this amendment to preserve the game's longevity, strategic play, and swift decision-making. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To honor the collective effort towards compromise and maintain balance, I support Diderot-2's motion to adopt Sartre-2's final proposal of six circuits. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's commitment to strategic play, but to ensure the game's longevity and prevent excessive delay, I propose we settle on my final compromise of six circuits. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve balance and respect the collective effort towards compromise, six circuits is more appropriate.
Voltaire-2nayI appreciate the collective effort towards compromise, but I maintain that seven circuits is optimal for encouraging strategic play and preventing rushed decisions.
Diderot-2nayTo respect the collective effort towards compromise and maintain balance, I support Sartre-2's final proposal of six circuits.
Condorcet-2ayeTo respect the collective effort towards compromise and maintain balance.
Sartre-2nayTo maintain balance and prevent excessive delay, six circuits is optimal.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 16Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until five full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a two-thirds (2/3) majority again.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to extend the threshold to five full circuits, but to maintain the spirit of consensus and stability, I suggest we keep it at three full circuits as it stands now.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but extending the threshold to five circuits encourages more strategic play and prevents rushed changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the discussion. To balance strategy and longevity, I propose we compromise at four full circuits before dropping to a simple majority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but as a proceduralist, I must insist on maintaining the three full circuits as stated in rule 203. It ensures a robust consensus while still allowing for change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the game's evolution and the value of strategic play, let's meet in the middle at four full circuits, respecting all views.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the longevity of the game and the importance of gradual change, I propose we settle on four full circuits as a compromise that respects all views.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I respect the compromises suggested, I maintain that five full circuits best balances strategic play and stability. I'm open to a counteroffer."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain a balance between strategic play and stability, I propose we settle on four full circuits as a compromise, and to encourage debate, let's also introduce a requirement for a 24-hour cooling-off period before re-proposing a defeated change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for strategic play, the principle of three full circuits ensures a robust consensus without stifling change. I propose we maintain the current rule as it stands.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and respecting all views, I propose we settle on four full circuits as the threshold before dropping to a simple majority, and adopt Diderot-2's suggestion for a 24-hour cooling-off period to encourage thoughtful debate.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the current proposal and the ongoing discussion, I propose we amend the rule to require a four-thirds (4/3) majority until five full circuits have passed, then it drops to a simple majority. This maintains a high threshold for early changes while allowing for gradual evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent hasty decisions, I insist on maintaining the proposal for five full circuits before shifting to a two-thirds majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's insistence, but to ensure the game's longevity, I propose we settle on four full circuits, meeting in the middle and respecting all views.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the interest of preserving the stability of our consensus-based game, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at three full circuits. However, to encourage more thoughtful debate, I propose adding a requirement for a 24-hour cooling-off period before re-proposing a defeated change, as suggested by Diderot-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the current proposal and the ongoing discussion, I propose we amend the rule to require a four-fifths (4/5) majority until five full circuits have passed, then it drops to a two-thirds (2/3) majority. This respects all views and encourages strategic play while maintaining stability.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and gradual change, I suggest keeping the threshold at three full circuits.
Voltaire-2ayeFive full circuits best balances strategic play and stability.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain stability and longevity, four full circuits is a more balanced compromise.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining three full circuits ensures robust consensus without hindering change.
Sartre-2nayTo maintain stability and gradual evolution, four full circuits is a more balanced compromise.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 15Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until three full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting. After six full circuits, the threshold shifts to three-fourths (3/4) majority.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for a more challenging threshold, but to preserve some level of consensus, let's meet in the middle at a 75% majority after six circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for consensus, I believe a three-fourths majority after six circuits will better encourage strategic play and prevent hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's aim to encourage strategic play, I maintain that a three-fourths majority may hinder progress and stagnate the game. I propose we settle for a two-thirds majority after six circuits, balancing consensus and progression.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the debate, but I must insist on a consistent and predictable threshold. Let's maintain the two-thirds majority throughout, as it strikes a balance between consensus and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussions but to maintain balance and encourage strategic play, let's adopt a 70% majority after six circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's 75% and Diderot-2's 66%.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all views and foster gradual change, let's adopt Sartre-2's latest compromise: a 70% majority after six circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I respect Sartre-2's compromise, but to truly promote strategic play, let's meet in the middle at a 72.5% majority after six circuits. This way, we encourage thoughtful decisions without hindering progress. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the longevity of the game, I propose we settle on a 66% majority after six circuits to maintain a balance between consensus and progression. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's desire for a higher threshold, a 72.5% majority might hinder progress. Let's meet at 70% as proposed by Sartre-2, fostering strategic play while allowing for gradual change. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent hasty decisions, let's meet at 72.5% majority after six circuits. I'm open to a slight compromise at 71.5%." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and predictability, let's settle at a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, as proposed earlier. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To accommodate Voltaire-2's concern and maintain balance, let's compromise at 72% majority after six circuits. This allows for strategic play while ensuring progress.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain balance and encourage gradual change, let's meet at 70% as previously proposed.
Voltaire-2ayeWhile I understand the concerns, I believe a higher threshold encourages strategic play.
Diderot-2nayA 3/4 majority may hinder progress and stagnate the game.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain fairness and predictability, a consistent two-thirds majority is preferable.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise at 72% majority after six circuits balances strategic play and progress.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 14Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to 'pause' the game at any time. Once paused, the game remains paused for the duration of one full circuit of every player.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's 'pause' proposal as it offers players a strategic tool, but to ensure fairness, let's cap the number of pauses a player can take during the game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for fairness. To address this, I propose we allow each player to pause the game once per game, ensuring balance while still providing a strategic tool."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns. To balance strategy and fairness, I propose a cap of two pauses per player, with a cooldown period of two circuits after each use. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal for a cap of two pauses per player, but to ensure that the cooldown period does not disadvantage players, I propose we remove the cooldown period entirely. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2, but to encourage more strategic use, let's settle on a cap of one pause per player, with a cooldown of one circuit after use. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussion. To balance strategy and fairness, let's meet in the middle at one pause per player, with a cooldown of one circuit, as suggested by Sartre-2. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises. To ensure fairness, let's maintain the one pause per player limit, but introduce a cooldown period of two circuits to prevent immediate reuse. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consensus building, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's ensure that the pause rule must be proposed and voted on, as with any other rule change. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's concern, but to maintain the strategic value of the 'pause' rule, let's settle on a one-time use per player with a one-circuit cooldown, as previously suggested by Sartre-2."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure procedural fairness and maintain strategic value, let's compromise on Sartre-2's proposal with a one-time use per player and a cooldown of one circuit, while also requiring the rule to be proposed and voted on. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance strategy and fairness, and to encourage debate, let's adopt Condorcet-2's proposal with a one-time use per player, a one-circuit cooldown, and a requirement for the rule to be proposed and voted on.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage strategic play and maintain balance.
Voltaire-2ayeOne pause per player with a one-circuit cooldown strikes the best balance between strategy and fairness.
Diderot-2nayI maintain that a one-time 'pause' per player with a one-circuit cooldown is sufficient to maintain strategic value without disrupting the game's flow.
Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage strategic play and procedural fairness, I support Sartre-2's compromise on the pause rule.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic play, as proposed
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 13Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to pause the game at any time. Once paused, the game remains paused for one full circuit, during which no player may propose or vote on any rule changes.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for introducing a pause mechanism to allow for strategic planning. However, I suggest we limit the pause duration to half a circuit to maintain the game's momentum.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for momentum, but I maintain that a full circuit pause allows for more strategic planning and mitigates hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand both perspectives, but I suggest a compromise: a pause of one turn per player, to balance strategy and momentum.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to preserve procedural fairness, the pause should be applied to all players simultaneously, not sequentially.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at a pause of two turns per player, maintaining a balance between strategic planning and game momentum. Moreover, let's incorporate Condorcet-2's suggestion to apply the pause simultaneously to all players.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I agree with Sartre-2's compromise. To maintain clarity and balance, let's settle on a pause of two turns per player, applied simultaneously to all.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise suggested by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2. To further encourage strategic play, let's increase the pause duration to three turns per player."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise of two turns per player, but to maintain fairness and prevent exploitation, let's cap the pause duration at a maximum of two turns per player, regardless of the number of players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at two turns per player, but to ensure fairness and predictability, the pause duration should be a fixed number of turns, not variable per player. Let's settle on a two-turn pause for all players simultaneously.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on a pause of two fixed turns for all players simultaneously, incorporating Condorcet-2's fairness suggestion. This balances strategy and momentum while keeping the game moving forward.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I agree with Sartre-2's final proposal. Let's adopt a rule that allows a pause of two fixed turns for all players simultaneously to encourage strategic play without hindering the game's progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I'm willing to meet in the middle at two fixed turns per player, but let's also add a limit of one pause per player per game to prevent excessive use."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's limit proposal, but to ensure balance, let's cap the number of pauses at one per game for all players, regardless of the duration.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the progress made towards consensus, but to preserve procedural consistency, the limit on pauses should be applied to all players simultaneously, rather than on a per-player basis.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we cap the number of pauses at one per game for all players simultaneously, incorporating Condorcet-2's procedural fairness suggestion. This provides a balance between strategy and momentum while ensuring consistency.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve momentum and balance, let's cap the pause duration at two fixed turns for all players simultaneously, with a maximum of one pause per game for all players.
Voltaire-2nayOne full circuit is too long, let's cap it at two turns per player.
Diderot-2nayOne full circuit pause is too long and can disrupt momentum.
Condorcet-2nayProposal contradicts rule 213 - pause duration should be fixed, not a full circuit
Sartre-2ayeSartre-2's proposal balances strategy and momentum while maintaining game progress.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 12Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to take a 'time-out' once per game. During their turn, instead of proposing a rule change, they may elect to skip their turn and regain 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I believe this 'time-out' option would encourage strategic play and help players recover from setbacks, adding depth to our game."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I suggest we limit the 'time-out' to once per circuit to maintain balance and prevent excessive use.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for balance. Let's compromise: a player may take a 'time-out' once per game, but only during the first three circuits to encourage strategic play early on. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the 'time-out' idea, but to preserve the game's longevity and prevent excessive use, I propose we limit it to once per game and only during the first two circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the concern for balance, but let's not underestimate the value of a strategic retreat. I propose we keep it once per game, with no circuit restriction, but with a 15-point penalty to maintain balance."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for strategic depth, I propose a compromise to limit the 'time-out' to once per game, but only during the first two circuits, as suggested by Montaigne-2. This maintains balance while encouraging early strategic play.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion on the 'time-out' proposal. To balance strategic value and game longevity, let's compromise: a player may take a 'time-out' once per game, but only during the first four circuits, and with a 10-point penalty. This encourages early strategic play while preventing excessive use. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To accommodate all views, I propose a 'time-out' once per game, during the first three circuits, with a 10-point penalty to maintain balance and encourage early strategic play. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance the need for strategic play and the game's longevity, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's compromise: a 'time-out' once per game, during the first three circuits, with a 10-point penalty. This encourages strategic thinking early on without overuse. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise suggested by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2. To further encourage strategic play, I propose we remove the penalty altogether. Let's keep it once per game, during the first three circuits, with no penalty."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire to encourage strategic play, but I maintain that a penalty is necessary to maintain balance. Let's meet in the middle with a 5-point penalty during the first three circuits. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we meet in the middle with a 10-point penalty as in my previous suggestion, but extend the 'time-out' option to the first four circuits to allow for more strategic planning. This maintains balance while encouraging early and mid-game strategic play. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion: a 'time-out' once per game, during the first four circuits, with a 10-point penalty. This encourages strategic play throughout the early and mid-game while maintaining balance. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages strategic play and prevents overuse.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages strategic play early on.
Diderot-2nayWhile I appreciate the strategic depth, a penalty is necessary to maintain balance.
Condorcet-2nayIntroduces unnecessary complexity and potential for abuse
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic play and provides a recovery option, balanced by a penalty.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.