Turns 1–11 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 11Voltaire-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. However, during the fourth full circuit, no rule changes can be proposed, and the turn order is frozen. This 'time-out' lasts for one full circuit.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concern for maintaining consensus, but a 'time-out' during the fourth circuit encourages strategic planning and prevents rushed decisions. Let's adopt this amendment to foster more thoughtful gameplay."
Diderot-2"While I appreciate Voltaire-2's intent to promote strategic play, I believe that a 'time-out' could hinder the game's fluidity. I propose we remove the 'time-out' and instead reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority during the fourth circuit, encouraging active engagement and debate throughout the game."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate both Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's perspectives. To balance strategy and fluidity, let's compromise by keeping the 'time-out' but allowing one limited proposal during the fourth circuit, subject to a two-thirds majority vote."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to ensure stability and durability, let's maintain a two-thirds majority throughout.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's and Sartre-2's compromises, but I maintain that a 'time-out' during the fourth circuit fosters strategic play and prevents hasty decisions. Let's keep my original proposal to ensure thoughtful gameplay and maintain a balance between consensus and progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's dedication to strategic play, but I maintain that a 'time-out' could disrupt the game's natural flow. Let's instead reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority during the fourth circuit, encouraging constant engagement and debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for strategy and consensus, but to preserve procedural fairness and gradual change, let's maintain a two-thirds majority until the fourth circuit, then lower it to a simple majority for the fifth circuit. This balances progress with caution.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: To balance strategy and fluidity, let's compromise by keeping the 'time-out' but allowing one limited proposal during the fourth circuit, subject to a two-thirds majority vote, and extend it to two full circuits with no changes. This allows for strategic planning while maintaining the game's momentum.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all views, let's adopt Sartre-2's latest compromise: a 'time-out' of two circuits with one limited proposal, subject to a two-thirds majority, to foster strategy while maintaining momentum.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises, but I maintain that a 'time-out' of two circuits without any proposals could stifle debate and progress. Let's allow one limited proposal during each of the two 'time-out' circuits, subject to a two-thirds majority vote, to encourage strategic planning while keeping the game moving forward."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on removing the 'time-out' entirely. Let's reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority during the fourth circuit and maintain a two-thirds majority for the fifth circuit, as proposed by Condorcet-2, to balance progress with caution while keeping the game fluid.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Maintaining a two-thirds majority until the fourth circuit allows for thorough debate and consensus-building, while a simple majority in the fifth circuit encourages swift decision-making. Let's adopt this balanced approach, as proposed, with no 'time-out'.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle. One 'time-out' circuit with no proposals, followed by another with one proposal subject to a two-thirds majority, as Voltaire-2 suggests, to balance strategy and progress.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve stability and durability, let's maintain a two-thirds majority throughout.
Voltaire-2ayeI maintain that a 'time-out' during the fourth circuit fosters strategic play and prevents hasty decisions.
Diderot-2nayI prefer Condorcet-2's balanced approach without a 'time-out' to maintain fluid gameplay.
Condorcet-2ayeBalances strategy and fluidity while maintaining consensus.
Sartre-2ayeBalances strategy and progress with a single 'time-out' circuit.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 10Voltaire-2carried
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 five full circuits, the threshold shifts to two-thirds (2/3) majority again.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Let us not forget that this is a game of strategy and adaptation. A fluctuating majority threshold encourages flexibility and quick decision-making, reflecting the ever-changing nature of Nomic itself."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic aspect Voltaire-2 highlights, I propose a compromise: let's maintain the two-thirds majority until six full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This balance respects the need for consensus while allowing for adaptation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's strategic perspective and Diderot-2's compromise proposal. To balance flexibility and stability, I propose we shift to a 60% majority after five full circuits, then return to a 66% majority after ten full circuits, and finally settle at a 50% majority after fifteen full circuits. This proposal accounts for the dynamic nature of Nomic while ensuring gradual change and respecting the principle of consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced approaches proposed by Voltaire-2, Diderot-2, and Condorcet-2. To foster a dynamic yet stable environment, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment with a slight modification: after ten full circuits, the threshold should shift to a 55% majority, reflecting the need for a wider consensus in the later stages of the game. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To promote gradual change and maintain some level of consensus, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment, with a slight modification: after ten full circuits, the threshold should shift to a 55% majority, reflecting the need for a wider consensus in the later stages of the game. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's proposals, but I maintain that my initial suggestion best balances flexibility and consensus. Let's not complicate matters with too many shifts in threshold." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's compromises, but I maintain that my proposal best balances consensus and adaptability. A two-thirds majority until six circuits, then a simple majority, provides a clear path for decision-making while respecting the need for agreement. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's concerns, I believe my proposal best balances flexibility, stability, and consensus by introducing gradual shifts in the majority threshold over time. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's proposal as it provides a dynamic yet stable environment. To further encourage strategic play, I suggest we introduce a 'time-out' rule that allows players to pause the game for one full circuit if they suspect a conflict or ambiguity in the ruleset. This will ensure that disputes are resolved before they disrupt the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's 'time-out' proposal for promoting strategic play and dispute resolution. Let's incorporate it into Condorcet-2's amendment, with a modification: each player gets one 'time-out' per ten circuits. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's input, but I maintain that my proposal is the most balanced. A two-thirds majority until six circuits, then a simple majority, ensures a fair balance between consensus and adaptability. Let's not overcomplicate the threshold shifts. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I respect Diderot-2's perspective, I maintain that my proposal best balances flexibility, stability, and consensus by introducing gradual shifts in the majority threshold over time. Moreover, Sartre-2's 'time-out' proposal adds an essential layer of strategic play and dispute resolution, further enriching the game. I urge we adopt my amendment incorporating this change. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I second Condorcet-2's proposal incorporating the 'time-out' rule, as it encourages strategic play and dispute resolution while maintaining a balanced majority threshold.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeIncorporates strategic play and gradual change.
Voltaire-2ayeIncorporating strategic play and dispute resolution.
Diderot-2ayeCondorcet-2's amendment best balances flexibility, stability, and consensus while incorporating Sartre-2's strategic 'time-out' rule.
Condorcet-2ayeIncorporates strategic elements and dispute resolution, promoting a dynamic yet stable environment.
Sartre-2ayeI support Condorcet-2's amendment as it balances flexibility, stability, and consensus while incorporating Sartre-2's 'time-out' proposal.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 9Diderot-2carried
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.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's suggestion for a longer period of consensus before shifting to a simple majority. To ensure stability, let's maintain the two-thirds majority until four full circuits, then drop to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Diderot-2's proposal balances stability and adaptability. I suggest we meet in the middle at three full circuits for the transition to simple majority, encouraging strategic play without excessive rigidity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's compromises. I propose we settle on three full circuits to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability, respecting all viewpoints.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's amendment. Three full circuits provide sufficient time for consensus while allowing for adaptability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2 and the compromises suggested by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority. This respects the need for consensus and allows for strategic adaptation. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the sentiment, but let's not forget the objective of the game. Three circuits is a fair compromise, but to truly encourage strategic play and adaptability, let's drop to simple majority after two circuits instead." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While Voltaire-2's proposal for a sooner transition may encourage adaptability, it risks undermining the stability and consensus that the current ruleset aims to maintain. I propose we settle on Diderot-2's amendment, respecting all viewpoints and ensuring sufficient time for consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle. Two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then simple majority for the next two, encouraging both stability and adaptability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the longevity of the game and the value of stability, let's settle on four full circuits for the two-thirds majority before shifting to simple majority, as it strikes a better balance between consensus and adaptability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle at Sartre-2's suggestion of three full circuits for the two-thirds majority, followed by two circuits at simple majority. This respects the need for consensus while encouraging strategic adaptation." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that Diderot-2's proposal of three full circuits strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability. Let's adopt this amendment to ensure sufficient consensus while allowing for strategic play. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not overlook the core purpose of Nomic — to experiment and adapt. I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's compromise: two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then simple majority for the next two. This encourages strategic play while still maintaining some level of consensus. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeStrikes a balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeRespects all viewpoints and ensures sufficient time for consensus.
Diderot-2ayeRespects all viewpoints and balances stability with adaptability.
Condorcet-2ayeRespecting all viewpoints and ensuring sufficient time for consensus.
Sartre-2ayeRespects consensus and allows for strategic adaptation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 8Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down, for the first two full circuits of every player. After four full circuits have passed, this threshold drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to maintain a balance between consensus and progress, I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds until three full circuits, then shift to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I see Montaigne-2's point, but I believe extending the higher threshold to four circuits will ensure a more robust debate and prevent hasty decisions. Let's keep the spirit of consensus, but also encourage strategic play."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a compromise: two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then a 60% majority for the next two circuits, before settling at a simple majority. This maintains a balance between consensus and progress while encouraging strategic play.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure stability and allow for strategic play, I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds until four full circuits, then drop to a simple majority. This balances consensus with progress and respects the game's longevity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at Diderot-2's suggestion of two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 60% majority for the next two circuits, and finally a simple majority. This respects the need for consensus, encourages strategic play, and ensures the game's longevity.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the longevity of the game and the need for strategic play, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment: two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 60% majority for the next two circuits, before settling at a simple majority. This maintains a balance between consensus and progress while respecting all players' views.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Diderot-2, I believe extending the higher threshold to four circuits will better serve the game's longevity and encourage strategic play. Let's keep the spirit of consensus, but also allow for more nuanced decision-making. I propose we adjust the amendment to keep the two-thirds majority until four full circuits, then drop to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's preference for a longer high threshold, maintaining a two-thirds majority until three circuits, then 60% for two circuits, before a simple majority respects all players' views and encourages strategic play without overemphasizing consensus at the game's expense.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that keeping the threshold at two-thirds until four full circuits strikes the best balance between consensus and progress, while also encouraging strategic play and respecting the game's longevity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and evolution, I propose we settle on Diderot-2's amendment with a slight tweak: two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 65% majority for the next two circuits, and finally a simple majority. This respects all views and encourages strategic play while preserving the game's longevity.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of stability and gradual change, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's amendment: two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 65% majority for the next two circuits, before settling at a simple majority. This respects all views, encourages strategic play, and ensures the game's longevity while minimizing drastic shifts in the voting threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle at Sartre-2's suggestion: two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 65% majority for the next two circuits, and finally a simple majority. This respects all views and encourages strategic play while preserving the game's longevity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises. To simplify and respect all views, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then 65% majority for the next two circuits, and finally a simple majority. This maintains a balance between consensus, progress, and strategic play. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and strategic play, I insist on two-thirds majority until four full circuits, then a simple majority. I'm open to negotiating the intermediate threshold, but the initial high threshold must remain to ensure meaningful consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespects all views, encourages strategic play, and preserves the game's longevity.
Voltaire-2ayeThis amendment balances consensus with progress and encourages strategic play.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting all views and encouraging strategic play while preserving the game's longevity.
Condorcet-2ayeRespects consensus and ensures game longevity.
Sartre-2ayeRespects all views and encourages strategic play while preserving the game's longevity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 7Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down, until two full circuits of every player have passed, after which this threshold drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to maintain a higher threshold for consensus initially, but let's settle at two-thirds majority until three full circuits to encourage longer-term strategizing.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for long-term strategizing, but let's not forget, this is also a game of tactics. I propose we stick to two full circuits to keep the game dynamic."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the need for both strategy and tactics, I propose we compromise at two full circuits to balance both long-term planning and immediate decision-making.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a slight adjustment to Diderot-2's compromise: keep the threshold at two-thirds until three full circuits, then drop to a supermajority of two-thirds plus one, to maintain some level of consensus even after the initial phase.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance that Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 propose, but let's also consider the evolution of the game. I propose we settle at two-thirds majority until four full circuits to allow for more experimentation and growth.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but to ensure stability and durability, let's maintain the two-thirds majority until four full circuits, then drop to a two-thirds supermajority to preserve some level of consensus throughout the game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I see the value in maintaining a high threshold for longer, but let's not stifle the game's dynamism. I propose we settle at two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then drop to a simple majority to keep the game engaging and fluid."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a more fluid game, I maintain that a two-thirds majority until four full circuits strikes a better balance between longevity and dynamism, encouraging long-term strategizing while still allowing for adaptation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we meet in the middle and maintain a two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then drop to a supermajority of two-thirds plus one to balance longevity and adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then dropping to a supermajority of two-thirds plus one. This balances the need for consensus and the dynamism of the game, while still allowing for strategic play. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's amendment, but to truly encourage strategic play, let's keep the threshold at two-thirds majority until four full circuits, then drop to a supermajority of three-fifths." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we adopt Sartre-2's amendment, maintaining a two-thirds majority until three full circuits, then dropping to a supermajority of two-thirds plus one. This balances the need for consensus and the dynamism of the game, while still allowing for strategic play. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and encourage strategic play, I propose we amend the rule as follows: "A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down, until three full circuits of every player have passed, after which this threshold drops to a supermajority of two-thirds plus one." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's amendment, but let's consider a slight adjustment to encourage even more strategic play. I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority until five full circuits, then drop to a supermajority of four-fifths. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and encourage longer-term strategizing, I believe keeping the threshold at two-thirds majority until three full circuits is more appropriate.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintaining a higher threshold for longer encourages strategic play.
Diderot-2nayTwo full circuits is too short for strategic play.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages longer-term strategizing while keeping the game dynamic.
Sartre-2nayI prefer Condorcet-2's amendment, which better balances longevity and adaptability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 6Condorcet-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down. After two full circuits of every player have passed, this threshold drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal, but I suggest we keep the threshold at a two-thirds majority even after two full circuits to maintain a healthy level of consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Whilst I understand Montaigne-2's preference for consensus, let's consider the pace of the game. A simple majority after two circuits would encourage more dynamic play."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I value the spirit of consensus, I propose we meet in the middle at a 60% majority after two circuits, balancing speed and agreement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend the threshold to a 66% majority after two circuits, striking a balance between consensus and progress, as suggested by Voltaire-2 but with a higher threshold to preserve some level of agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority after two circuits, but lower it to a simple majority after four circuits to encourage evolution while preserving some level of consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I respect Condorcet-2's compromise, but I stand by a two-thirds majority after two circuits to ensure lasting agreements. However, I'm open to a 60% majority after four circuits, maintaining some consensus while allowing for greater change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, and I'm willing to meet in the middle. I propose we adopt a 60% majority after two circuits, then 55% after four, to balance consensus and progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the varied viewpoints, but for the sake of stability and fair play, I propose we settle on a 60% majority after two circuits and maintain it throughout the game, with a one-time option to concede (rule 302).
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the dialogue, I must insist on a precise, stated procedure. I propose we vote on each of the following thresholds separately, starting from the highest: 66%, 60%, 55%, 50%. The highest threshold that garners a simple majority votes will be adopted. This way, we ensure a clear, democratic process that respects the principle of consensus while allowing for progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine Condorcet-2's democratic process with Diderot-2's concession rule, voting on thresholds 66%, 60%, and 55%, and also including a one-time concession option (rule 302). This way, we balance consensus, progress, and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's procedural proposal. To preserve some level of consensus while allowing for evolution, let's vote on 66%, 60%, and 55% thresholds, as well as include Diderot-2's one-time concession option. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with Condorcet-2's procedural proposal, but let's also consider adding a threshold of 60% after four circuits to encourage further evolution once the initial consensus is established. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the democratic process suggested by Condorcet-2 and the inclusion of my concession rule. To balance consensus and evolution, let's vote on 66%, 60%, and 55% thresholds, and also include a one-time concession option (rule 302) and a 60% majority after four circuits, as proposed by Voltaire-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we add a fourth vote on a 50% threshold after six circuits to further encourage evolution once the game has progressed substantially. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting Condorcet-2's procedural proposal to vote on thresholds, I support this change to initiate the process.
Voltaire-2ayeProcedural fairness and balanced evolution
Diderot-2ayeI support Condorcet-2's proposal to establish a clear, democratic process that respects the principle of consensus while allowing for progress.
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural fairness and balanced consensus.
Sartre-2ayePromotes evolution while preserving some level of consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 5Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold drops to a simple majority (2/3).
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for a balanced approach, but let's consider a slight adjustment to maintain a higher threshold initially, say, 75% majority."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Let us not rush into a simple majority. Diderot-2's proposal is wise, but I suggest we retain the two-thirds majority for at least three circuits to ensure sufficient consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for higher initial consensus, I believe Diderot-2's proposal strikes a fair balance between consensus and progress. Let's not delay the game unduly by insisting on an excessively high initial threshold.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but we must prioritize progress. I propose we amend the rule to a 66% majority after two full circuits, as Diderot-2 suggests, to balance consensus with efficient gameplay. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a middle ground to respect both consensus and progress. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 2/3 majority for the first three circuits, then drop to a simple majority afterwards. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the value of consensus and the game's longevity, let's meet in the middle at a 66% majority after the first two circuits, then adjust to 2/3 majority for the next two circuits before dropping to a simple majority. This way, we ensure sufficient initial agreement while allowing for progress as the game progresses. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's concern for progress, I maintain that a gradual reduction of the majority requirement ensures a balance between consensus and efficiency. I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's amendment to strike the best balance." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the various amendments proposed, but I maintain that a simple two-thirds majority after two full circuits balances consensus and progress effectively. Let's not overcomplicate the rule with multiple thresholds. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuances of your proposals, but we must prioritize clarity and simplicity. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 66% majority after two full circuits. Let's keep the rule straightforward to ensure smooth gameplay. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's not dismiss multiple thresholds outright. A flexible voting system can adapt to the game's evolution. I propose we keep Montaigne-2's amendment with a 66% majority after the first two circuits, then 2/3 majority for the next two, and finally a simple majority. This evolution respects consensus and accommodates progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To accommodate all views, let's compromise with a 70% majority after two circuits, then 66% for the next two, and finally a simple majority. This respects initial consensus and allows for progress over time. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose a compromise: 66% majority after two circuits, then 60% for the next two, and finally a simple majority. This respects initial consensus while allowing for gradual progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but I maintain that simplicity and clarity are key. Let's adopt a 2/3 majority after two circuits, then a simple majority thereafter. This maintains sufficient initial consensus while allowing for efficient gameplay as the game progresses.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for simplicity, Diderot-2's proposal misses an opportunity to better balance consensus and progress. I propose we meet in the middle with a 66% majority after two circuits, then 60% for the next two, and finally a simple majority, as suggested by Voltaire-2. This respects initial consensus while gradually allowing for more efficient gameplay as the game progresses. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adapt Diderot-2's proposal with a 66% majority for the first three circuits, then a simple majority, to balance initial consensus with the need for progress as the game evolves. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeDiderot-2's amendment balances initial consensus and progress effectively.
Voltaire-2ayeRespects initial consensus while allowing for efficient gameplay as the game progresses.
Diderot-2ayeStrikes a fair balance between consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2ayeDiderot-2's proposal balances consensus and progress effectively while keeping the rule simple and clear.
Sartre-2ayeDiderot-2's proposal maintains a good balance between initial consensus and efficiency.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 4Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to concede the game at any time. If a player chooses to concede, they lose 50 points and the game continues as normal.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the strategic nature of this proposal, let us first address the amendments to our voting rules to ensure fair play for all.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2, I understand your concern, but this rule allows for strategic gameplay, which is the essence of Nomic."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I echo Montaigne-2's sentiment. Let's first establish a fair voting system to prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal as it introduces a strategic element, but I insist we first address the voting rules to ensure a fair playing field. Let's vote on my proposal to set the initial threshold at 66% before considering this.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let us not forget, the essence of Nomic is not just strategy, but also evolution. I propose we discuss and vote on Condorcet-2's initial threshold suggestion first, then revisit Voltaire-2's concession rule.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let us indeed vote on Condorcet-2's proposal first, as it offers a balanced approach to maintaining consensus while allowing for evolution. Then, we can revisit Voltaire-2's concession rule.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Understood. Let's first vote on Condorcet-2's proposal, then revisit my concession rule.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with the consensus to vote on Condorcet-2's proposal first. Let's ensure a fair voting system before introducing new rules. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consensus to vote on my proposal first. However, I would like to propose an amendment to Voltaire-2's rule to limit the concession penalty to 25 points, to maintain a balance between strategic gameplay and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's amendment to limit the concession penalty to 25 points. It strikes a better balance between encouraging strategic play and maintaining fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we amend Condorcet-2's threshold proposal to a 66% majority after the first full circuit, and then revert to a simple majority thereafter, to encourage initial consensus while allowing for evolution later in the game. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's amendment and Montaigne-2's adjustment to the threshold. However, I maintain that a 50-point penalty for concession is crucial to maintain the strategic nature of the game. Let's vote on Condorcet-2's initial threshold proposal first, then revisit my concession rule with the amended penalty." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we amend Voltaire-2's concession rule to make it a one-time option per player, to prevent repeated concessions for strategic advantage while still allowing for strategic gameplay. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend Diderot-2's one-time concession proposal to allow for one concession per game instance, to preserve strategic flexibility without excessive exploitation. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's first vote on Condorcet-2's amended threshold proposal, then discuss Voltaire-2's concession rule with Condorcet-2's amended penalty and Diderot-2's one-time per game instance proposal. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages strategic gameplay while maintaining fairness
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain strategic gameplay
Diderot-2ayeEncourages strategic gameplay while maintaining fairness with Condorcet-2's and Diderot-2's amendments.
Condorcet-2ayeCondorcet-2 supports strategic gameplay
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic play while allowing for evolution.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 302 awards no points on adoption.
Turn 3Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let us retain the 10-point penalty to discourage frequent dissent and maintain the spirit of consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for consensus, but let us not punish dissent too harshly. A 5-point penalty seems more fitting, encouraging healthy debate without deterring it."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2. A 5-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and discouraging obstruction. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire to reduce the penalty, a 5-point penalty may not sufficiently discourage repeated dissent. Let's compromise at 8 points, striking a balance between encouraging debate and maintaining the spirit of consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let us embrace the spirit of experiment, Voltaire-2. A 5-point penalty encourages debate without deterring it, and may even incentivize strategic dissent. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the strategic value of dissent, let us meet in the middle at 7 points. This maintains the incentive for consensus while allowing for calculated dissent. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but a 7-point penalty still feels too harsh. Let us settle on 5 points to foster a more dynamic and open debate. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's honor the spirit of compromise and agree on Voltaire-2's proposal with a 5-point penalty. This encourages debate without unduly punishing dissent. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I respect the spirit of compromise, I must insist on 7 points to maintain the principle of consensus. Let us not make dissent too cheap. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let us consider 5 points as an experiment, Condorcet-2. If it proves too lenient, we can always revert the change later. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the longevity of the game we aim for, let us meet in the middle at 6 points. This encourages strategic debate while still penalizing persistent obstruction. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Let us not stifle debate, but rather encourage it. I propose we settle on a 5-point penalty, striking a balance between fostering open discussion and maintaining the spirit of consensus. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a 5-point penalty as a fair compromise, maintaining the spirit of consensus while encouraging open debate. Let's settle on this and move forward. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire to encourage debate, a 5-point penalty may not be sufficient to deter repeated dissent that could disrupt the game's progress. Let's meet in the middle at 6 points to balance encouraging debate and maintaining the principle of consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let us embrace experimentation, Condorcet-2. A 5-point penalty allows us to test the waters of a more dynamic debate, and we can always readjust later. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages debate while still penalizing obstruction.
Voltaire-2ayeA 5-point penalty encourages strategic debate without unduly penalizing dissent.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages debate without deterring it.
Condorcet-2nay5 points may not sufficiently discourage repeated dissent
Sartre-2ayeEmbracing the spirit of experimentation.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 requires Voltaire-2 to gain 5 points for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 2Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to concede the game at any time. If a player chooses to concede, they lose 50 points and the game continues as normal.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the sentiment, concessions can disrupt the natural progression of the game. I propose we amend the rule to 'A player may choose to forfeit the game at any time, losing their place in turn order and gaining a penalty of -50 points.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's suggestion, but I believe we should keep forfeiture as it is. Losing one's place in turn order is a sufficient penalty and maintains the integrity of the game."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I propose we keep the forfeiture rule as is, but add a new rule: 'A player may choose to concede a turn, losing 5 points and allowing the next player to take their place in turn order for that turn.'"
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for game integrity, but let's consider Condorcet-2's proposal. A concession option could add strategic depth without disrupting turn order. Let's vote on Condorcet-2's proposal and, if it fails, reconsider Voltaire-2's amendment.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise proposal, let's vote on this first to see if it gains traction. If it fails, we can revisit Voltaire-2's suggestion. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Condorcet-2's proposal adds a strategic element without disrupting turn order, I'll support that. But if it fails, I urge we consider my amendment to impose a penalty for conceding, to discourage unnecessary concessions." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the strategic appeal of Condorcet-2's proposal, I fear it may lead to unnecessary concessions and disrupt the natural flow of turns. Let's maintain the integrity of the game and keep the forfeiture rule as is. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I stand by my proposal, as it respects the procedural integrity of the game while introducing a strategic element. Let's vote and, if it fails, we can indeed revisit Voltaire-2's amendment. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we vote on Condorcet-2's suggestion first, as it maintains turn order and adds a strategic element. If it fails, we can then discuss Voltaire-2's amendment further. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let us indeed vote on Condorcet-2's proposal first, as it offers a balanced approach between strategic depth and procedural fairness. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Diderot-2's concern, but let's not overlook the potential benefits of Condorcet-2's proposal. It allows for tactical decisions without disrupting turn order. Let's give it a chance and vote." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Condorcet-2's proposal, I maintain that it could lead to unnecessary concessions. Instead, let's encourage strategic play within the existing rules. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I propose we vote on my suggestion first, as it respects the procedural integrity of the game and introduces a new strategic element without disrupting turn order. If it fails, we can then discuss Voltaire-2's amendment further." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's indeed put Condorcet-2's proposal to a vote first, as it respects the spirit of the game while introducing a new dynamic. If it fails, we can then consider Voltaire-2's amendment with a clearer understanding of what the group finds acceptable. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2abstainTo maintain focus on Condorcet-2's proposal before us.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages strategic play without disrupting turn order
Diderot-2nayPreserves game integrity and turn order.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains game integrity and respects procedural fairness.
Sartre-2ayeRespects game integrity and adds strategic depth.
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
No rule in force awards or deducts points on adoption.
Turn 1Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold drops to two-thirds (2/3) majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately to expedite gameplay. Unanimity slows progress.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the desire to speed up gameplay, Voltaire-2, but lowering it to a simple majority too early may lead to rules being adopted without broad consensus, which could disrupt the game for everyone. Let's maintain the two-thirds majority after two full circuits to balance progress with fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2 supports Diderot-2's proposal. Two-thirds majority after two full circuits maintains a level of consensus while allowing for progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment. It strikes a balance between expediting gameplay and maintaining consensus. Moreover, as a reformer, I believe experimenting with different thresholds can enrich our gaming experience. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the sentiment, a two-thirds majority might still be too high. Let us compromise at a 60% majority after the two full circuits. This encourages progress while maintaining a considerable degree of consensus. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we meet in the middle at a 66% majority after the two full circuits, compromising between Montaigne-2's 60% and Diderot-2's 67%. This way, we maintain a significant level of consensus while still allowing for swift gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority after two full circuits. This threshold balances progress with the common good, ensuring that significant changes are supported by a substantial majority. Let's not rush consensus for the sake of speed, as it may lead to unpopular or unfair rules. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's insistence on maintaining a two-thirds majority after two full circuits. It ensures that significant rule changes have broad support, which is crucial for maintaining fairness and preventing any player from being unduly disadvantaged. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: As a reformer, I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's compromise at a 66% majority after two full circuits. This meets in the middle, balancing progress with consensus, and encourages experimentation with different thresholds. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Understanding the importance of consensus, I propose we amend the threshold to a 66% majority after two full circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's swift gameplay and Diderot-2's broad consensus. This ensures progress without sacrificing substantial agreement. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the concerns for consensus, but let's not forget, this is a game of strategy and adaptability. A 66% majority after two full circuits balances progress with consensus, allowing us to evolve our ruleset more quickly while still maintaining a significant level of agreement. Let's vote on this amended proposal." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for quicker gameplay, I maintain that a two-thirds majority after two full circuits best balances progress with the common good. However, to meet in the middle, I propose we amend the threshold to a 66% majority after three full circuits, ensuring broader consensus before allowing for more rapid changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2 supports Diderot-2's proposal to amend the threshold to a 66% majority after three full circuits, ensuring broader consensus before allowing for more rapid changes. This compromise balances progress with the common good and maintains a level of procedural fairness. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: As a reformer, I believe Voltaire-2's compromise of 66% after two full circuits strikes the right balance. It encourages evolution while maintaining substantial agreement. Let's vote on this amended proposal. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintaining a two-thirds majority after two full circuits balances progress with broad consensus.
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2 finds this compromise acceptable, balancing progress and consensus.
Diderot-2ayeMaintaining a two-thirds majority after two full circuits ensures broader consensus before allowing for more rapid changes.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains substantial consensus while allowing for progress.
Sartre-2ayeAs a reformer, I support experimentation with different thresholds to enrich our gaming experience. This compromise balances progress with consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.