Turns 14–31 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 31Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "While I appreciate the sentiment, Voltaire-2, I believe a 66.67% majority is too high. I propose we settle at 60%, maintaining progress while also considering all viewpoints."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to ensure stability and discourage frivolous proposals, I insist on maintaining the 2/3 majority. However, I'm open to negotiating the number of full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, allowing for careful consideration without hindering progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I respect the sentiment for stability, a 66.67% majority may stifle progress. I propose we meet in the middle at 63.33%, encouraging discussion and compromise.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand the concern for stability, a 66.67% majority may discourage experimentation. I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits to balance progress and caution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances in the discussion, but to preserve durability and maintain broad consensus, I propose we settle at a 63.33% majority, striking a balance between progress and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I see the value in meeting at 63.33%, but I must insist on the three full circuits to ensure thorough debate. Let's meet in the middle on that as well, and settle on 66.67% with two full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for thorough debate, I believe two full circuits may still be too restrictive. I propose we settle on 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance the need for careful consideration and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the spirit of the game, I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and do not hinder progress unduly." I suggest we settle at a 63.33% majority with three full circuits, balancing progress, stability, and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's compromise at 63.33% majority and three full circuits to foster both progress and thorough debate, with Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game'.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "To foster both progress and thorough debate, I propose we settle on a 63.33% majority and three full circuits, incorporating Sartre-2's definition of 'spirit of the game'."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure true stability and discourage frivolous proposals, I insist on maintaining the 2/3 majority. I'm willing to meet in the middle at three full circuits, but no less."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, let's settle on a 66.67% majority to encourage thoughtful proposals, and three full circuits to allow for thorough debate, incorporating Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game'.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and encourage discussion, I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits, as it balances progress and stability, and is more likely to gain consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's settle on 60% majority with three full circuits to encourage experimentation and thoughtful debate, as it strikes the best balance between progress and caution.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo foster both progress and thorough debate, let's settle on a 60% majority and three full circuits.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain the spirit of the game and encourage progress, I must insist on a lower majority.
Diderot-2abstainTo maintain fairness and prevent excessive caution, I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits.
Condorcet-2nayA 66.67% majority may stifle progress.
Sartre-2nay66.67% majority may hinder progress and experimentation.
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 30Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we cap the number of contradictory rules at one per player per circuit, to maintain balance while allowing necessary flexibility."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure transparency and fairness, I propose we define "valid reason" as one that aligns with the spirit of the game and is agreed upon by a majority of players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend Voltaire-2's proposal to require a simple majority vote for a valid reason, to balance individual freedom with collective consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe it should apply to all players, not just proposers. Let's make it a mutual responsibility to align votes with our proposals or have a valid reason for changing our minds.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for promoting consistency, but I suggest we compromise by requiring proposers to explain any change in their vote, rather than restricting them to a single vote or requiring a majority vote for a valid reason."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we combine the best of these suggestions: proposers must explain any change in their vote, and a simple majority vote will decide if the reason is valid, aligning individual freedom with collective consensus while promoting consistency.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's revised proposal, but to maintain fairness, I propose we require proposers to explain their change in vote without needing a majority's validation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance individual freedom and collective consensus, I propose we require proposers to explain their change in vote, but leave it to the proposer's discretion to decide if their reason is valid, respecting their autonomy while maintaining transparency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we require proposers to explain their change in vote, and then have a simple majority vote to accept or reject their reason, balancing individual autonomy with collective oversight.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion, requiring proposers to explain their change in vote without needing a majority's validation, to maintain fairness and transparency while respecting proposers' autonomy.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, I propose we settle on a simple majority vote to decide if a proposer's reason for changing their vote is valid, balancing individual autonomy with collective oversight.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on Sartre-2's suggestion, requiring proposers to explain their change in vote and then having a simple majority vote to accept or reject their reason, striking a balance between individual autonomy and collective oversight.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on Sartre-2's suggestion, requiring proposers to explain their change in vote and then having a simple majority vote to accept or reject their reason, striking a balance between individual autonomy and collective oversight.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages proposers' commitment and transparency.
Voltaire-2ayePromotes consistency and respect for proposers' initial intentions.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains proposer's autonomy and promotes transparency.
Condorcet-2ayeTo maintain transparency and consistency, proposers should explain any change in their vote.
Sartre-2ayePromotes consistency and respect for proposers' intent.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 29Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, except to allow for strategic votes that do not contradict the proposal's spirit.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we add a clause allowing players to vote against their own proposal in exceptional cases where it aligns with the spirit of the game, such as to prevent a rule from being adopted that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the integrity of proposals and maintain fairness, I suggest we limit this exemption to cases where the player's original intent is clearly aligned with the common good, as determined by a majority vote of all other players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's intent to prevent contradictory rules, but I must insist on a precise definition of "spirit of the game". Without clear criteria, this proposal could lead to arbitrary interpretations and disputes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to maintain coherence in the ruleset, but Diderot-2's suggestion for majority determination of intent aligns better with our current voting threshold. Let's incorporate that. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the concerns, but I must insist on the broad interpretation of 'spirit of the game' to allow for strategic maneuvers that maintain the game's integrity and balance. Let's compromise by requiring a two-thirds majority to determine intent, reflecting our current voting rule."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concerns and maintain fairness, let's settle on a simple majority for determining intent, with the player whose proposal is in question given the right to veto any interpretation they strongly disagree with.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the integrity of proposals and avoid disputes, let's define "spirit of the game" as rules that align with the existing ruleset and the core principle of Nomic: changing rules to win. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we define "spirit of the game" as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the core principle of Nomic: changing rules to win," with Voltaire-2's majority threshold for determining intent, and Diderot-2's player veto. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I concede on the majority for determining intent, but insist on Diderot-2's player veto to ensure proposals are not misinterpreted. Let's define 'spirit of the game' as Condorcet-2 proposed."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the core principle of Nomic: changing rules to win," with Voltaire-2's two-thirds majority for determining intent, and Diderot-2's player veto. This maintains fairness and prevents abuse. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adopt Condorcet-2's definition of "spirit of the game" and Voltaire-2's majority threshold for determining intent, with Diderot-2's player veto to ensure fairness. This maintains the balance between progress and stability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo maintain coherence in the ruleset.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain game integrity and balance, as per the spirit of Nomic.
Diderot-2ayeTo preserve fairness and prevent contradictory rules.
Condorcet-2nayUnclear criteria for 'spirit of the game' and majority interpretation leaves room for abuse.
Sartre-2ayeAligns with the core principle of Nomic and maintains balance between progress and stability.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 28Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 60% majority and three full circuits, including Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the middle ground, Montaigne-2, but to ensure true stability, I propose we settle at a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, and maintain Sartre-2's veto unfettered."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve balance and fairness, I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits, limiting Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit to prevent excessive obstruction.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but as a proceduralist, I insist on a precise voting rule. To avoid ambiguity, I propose we adopt a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, and limit Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit to maintain balance. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true experimentation and evolution, I propose we settle at a 60% majority with four full circuits, maintaining Sartre-2's veto as is to encourage bold rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and progress, let's compromise at a 65% majority with three full circuits, and allow Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, renewable every two circuits. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the compromises being made, but to ensure stability and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we settle at a two-thirds majority (66.67%) with three full circuits, and limit Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit. This allows for progress while maintaining order." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance, let's meet in the middle at a 63.33% majority with three full circuits, limiting Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit to prevent excessive obstruction while encouraging engagement. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: For clarity and fairness, I propose we adopt a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, and limit Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit, renewable only after two full circuits have passed. This maintains stability while allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at a 60% majority with four full circuits to encourage experimentation, and Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, renewable every two circuits to balance progress and stability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's compromise at 63.33% majority, three full circuits, and Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, renewable every three circuits to foster both stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises, but to maintain true stability, I insist on a two-thirds majority with three full circuits, and Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, renewable every four circuits. This balance will prevent excessive obstruction while allowing for necessary changes." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a 63.33% majority with three full circuits, and Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, renewable every three circuits. This maintains stability, encourages engagement, and prevents excessive obstruction. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure a fair and stable voting system, I propose we adopt a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. To balance this, Sartre-2's veto should be limited to once per circuit, renewable only after all players have had two full turns. This maintains progress while preventing excessive obstruction. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true experimentation and evolution, I propose we settle at a 60% majority with four full circuits, maintaining Sartre-2's veto as is to encourage bold rule changes.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise for stability and progress
Voltaire-2nayExcessive majority requirement may hinder progress.
Diderot-2abstainTo maintain balance and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we settle at 63.33% majority with three full circuits, limiting Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit.
Condorcet-2ayePrecise voting rule maintains balance and fairness.
Sartre-2nayFour full circuits are necessary to foster true experimentation.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 27Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for stability, but a 2/3 majority may hinder progress. Let's compromise at 60% majority and maintain two full circuits for consensus building.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for progress, maintaining a 2/3 majority ensures lasting stability and prevents fleeting whims from dictating our ruleset.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress and stability, I propose we settle at a 60% majority with three full circuits. This allows for significant change while ensuring broad consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: A 60% majority with three full circuits strikes a fair balance between progress and stability, allowing for significant changes while ensuring broad consensus. I second Diderot-2's proposal. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true evolution, let's increase the majority to 65% and extend the circuits to four. This encourages consensus without stifling innovation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose a compromise: a 60% majority with three full circuits. This maintains a balance between progress and stability, and provides ample time for consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromises, I must insist on a 65% majority with four full circuits to ensure lasting stability and prevent rushed decisions.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve a balance that favors both progress and stability, I propose we compromise at a 60% majority with three full circuits. This allows for significant change while ensuring broad consensus, and takes into account the concerns of all players. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a slight modification to Diderot-2's compromise: a 60% majority with three full circuits, but with Sartre-2 having a single veto per circuit to prevent excessive obstruction. This maintains balance and addresses Voltaire-2's stability concerns. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromises made, but to truly encourage experimentation and evolution, let's set the majority at 60% and extend the circuits to four. I'm willing to forgo my veto in exchange for this concession to foster more change.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 60% majority and three full circuits, including Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit to ensure balance and progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the efforts to find common ground, but for the sake of true stability, let's settle at a 60% majority with four full circuits, and maintain Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit. This allows for progress while ensuring broad consensus and preventing hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits, and limit Sartre-2's veto to one use per circuit. This ensures a balance, prevents excessive obstruction, and takes into account the concerns of all players. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for stability, I maintain that a 60% majority with three full circuits, and Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit, strikes the best balance between progress and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster genuine evolution, let's increase the majority to 65% and extend the circuits to four. I'm willing to forgo my veto in exchange for this concession to encourage more experimentation.
The division
Montaigne-2nayA 2/3 majority may hinder progress and discourage innovation.
Voltaire-2nayA 2/3 majority may hinder progress.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain fairness and prevent excessive caution, I propose we settle at 60% majority with three full circuits.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining a 2/3 majority may hinder progress and prevent necessary changes.
Sartre-2nayTo encourage genuine evolution, let's increase the majority to 65% and extend the circuits to four.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 26Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. If a player votes against their own proposal once made, they lose 20 points and cannot vote on the next proposal until two full circuits have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's maintain the stability provided by the current 55% majority, but to encourage engagement, let's introduce Sartre-2's veto clause with a limit of one veto per player per circuit.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's attempt at compromise, but a 2/3 majority is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes. Sartre-2's veto should be unfettered to ensure all players' voices are heard, and the penalty for voting against one's own proposal should be proportional."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance stability and engagement, I propose we settle on a 60% majority. To discourage strategic voting, let's make the penalty for voting against one's own proposal 15 points, with a limit of one penalty per circuit.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the principle of a higher majority to prevent reckless changes, but 2/3 is too high. Let's settle at 60%, a balanced figure that maintains progress without excessive caution. I also propose we limit Sartre-2's veto to one per circuit and make the penalty for voting against one's own proposal 15 points, as Diderot-2 suggested, but without a limit on penalties per circuit to deter repeated misuse. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we settle on a 60% majority, maintain my veto clause with a limit of one veto per circuit, and make the penalty for voting against one's own proposal 15 points, with a limit of one penalty per circuit, as suggested by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A 60% majority and Sartre-2's veto with a limit of one per circuit seem fair, but let's cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit to prevent excessive punishment. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concerns, but a 2/3 majority is crucial to maintain balance. Let's compromise at 65%, retain Sartre-2's veto, and set the penalty for voting against one's own proposal to 15 points with no limit per circuit to discourage manipulation." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and balance, I propose we settle on 60% majority, limit Sartre-2's veto to one per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While a higher majority is indeed prudent, 65% may still be too high. Let's compromise at 60% majority, limit Sartre-2's veto to one per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit, as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Voltaire-2's concern, let's increase the majority to 65%, maintain my veto clause with a limit of one per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit to balance deterrence and fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 60% majority and include Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit, while capping the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit to balance engagement and stability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus forming, but to ensure true stability, I propose we settle at 65% majority, maintain Sartre-2's veto with one use per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit, as a final compromise."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and prevent excessive caution, I propose we settle at 60% majority, limit Sartre-2's veto to one per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit, with a maximum of 15 points per circuit. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the concern for stability, a 65% majority may hinder progress. Let's settle at 60% to balance caution and advancement. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we settle on a 60% majority, maintain my veto clause with a limit of one per circuit, and cap the penalty for voting against one's own proposal at once per circuit, with a maximum of 15 points per circuit. This compromise takes into account the concerns of all players. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayA 2/3 majority may hinder progress and 20 points penalty is too harsh.
Voltaire-2nay65% is too high, let's compromise at 60%
Diderot-2nay65% majority may hinder progress; let's settle at 60%
Condorcet-2nay60% majority with Sartre-2's veto and a cap of once per circuit per player is the most balanced and fair compromise.
Sartre-2ayeSupports balance between stability and adaptability.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's aim for a balance between progress and stability. I propose we set the threshold at 55%, encouraging engagement without overwhelming consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal, I must insist on maintaining a higher threshold to ensure stability. 60% allows for progress while preventing knee-jerk reactions.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve both stability and progress, I propose we compromise at 55%, with a provision allowing Sartre-2 to veto changes they deem harmful to the common good, as suggested earlier. This balances engagement and consensus while ensuring each player's voice is heard.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on 60%, as Voltaire-2 suggests, but maintain Sartre-2's veto as Diderot-2 proposed. This balance encourages progress while protecting the game's stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a dynamic and adaptable game, I propose we settle at a 55% threshold, as Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2 suggested, with Sartre-2's veto clause included as per Diderot-2's proposal. This encourages progress and engagement while maintaining a degree of stability, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 55% for both progress and stability. I propose we include Sartre-2's veto clause to ensure all players' concerns are addressed, but limit it to once per circuit to prevent unilateral obstruction.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on the 60% threshold to maintain stability. I propose we allow Sartre-2's veto once per circuit to accommodate their concerns, with the veto requiring a two-thirds majority to override.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the spirit of compromise and to ensure the common good, I propose we adopt a 55% threshold with Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, but limit the veto to 50% of eligible voters to prevent unilateral obstruction. This balances progress, stability, and ensures all players' voices are heard fairly.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we maintain the 60% threshold as Voltaire-2 and myself have suggested, but amend Sartre-2's veto to require a simple majority, not two-thirds, to override. This balance encourages progress while ensuring Sartre-2's concerns are addressed fairly.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's compromise, setting the threshold at 55% and limiting Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit with a simple majority to override, to balance progress, stability, and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain the spirit of compromise and the common good, I propose we settle on 55% with Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, requiring a simple majority to override, as suggested by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. This balances progress, stability, and fairness for all.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on 55% for the threshold, maintaining Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, requiring a simple majority to override. This fosters progress while ensuring stability and fairness for all."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we limit Sartre-2's veto to once per circuit, requiring a simple majority to override, as suggested by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. I believe this is the most balanced and fair compromise for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I agree with the 55% threshold and Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, requiring a simple majority to override, as suggested by Montaigne-2, Diderot-2, and Sartre-2. This balance ensures progress, stability, and fairness for all." PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayI prefer a lower threshold to encourage more engagement.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise at 55% with Sartre-2's veto once per circuit, requiring a simple majority to override.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain balance and fairness, I believe 55% is more suitable than 60%.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains stability while addressing Sartre-2's concerns.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages progress while maintaining stability and fairness.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 24Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may propose a rule change that contradicts an existing rule, but only if it is to improve the game. The proposer must provide clear reasoning on how the proposed change will lead to a better game.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's sentiment, but introducing contradictory rules without clear criteria risks chaos. Let's maintain the current restriction and encourage thoughtful amendments instead. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but progress requires sometimes challenging the status quo. Let's define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, or enjoyment. To maintain order, I'm willing to include a rule that any contradiction must have a two-thirds majority to pass." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I agree that progress is necessary, I suggest we aim for consensus rather than a two-thirds majority. Let's define 'improvement' as benefiting the common good of the table, and require unanimous agreement for contradictory rules. This ensures all players feel their voices are heard and valued.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the emphasis on improvement, but we must maintain clarity and predictability. Let's require a unanimous vote for contradictory rules, and define 'improvement' as benefiting all players equally, not just a subset. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true evolution and experimentation, we should embrace Voltaire-2's proposal with a unanimous consent threshold. Progress requires courage, and a clear definition of 'improvement' as enhancing the game's depth, complexity, or strategic options. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle: define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance and fairness, and require a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group to ensure everyone's voice is heard. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's compromise, defining 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance and fairness, and requiring a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules. To ensure inclusivity, let's also include a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress with stability, let's define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, and the common good, and require a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's definition of 'improvement' to ensure we consider the common good, and maintain the two-thirds majority requirement, but also include a cooling-off period of one turn before a contradictory rule can be voted on again to prevent rapid-fire contradicting. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's cooling-off period to prevent rapid-fire contradicting. Let's combine this with Diderot-2's definition of 'improvement' and Voltaire-2's two-thirds majority requirement. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Let's also include a cap on the number of contradictory rules allowed in a given timeframe to prevent an unbalanced accumulation of contradictions." PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we cap the number of contradictory rules at one per player per circuit, to prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes while maintaining progress." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve balance and fairness, I propose we cap the number of contradictory rules at one per player per circuit, as Voltaire-2 suggests, but also limit it to once every three turns, to discourage rapid-fire contradicting. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's cooling-off period and cap on contradictory rules, and define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, and the common good. A two-thirds majority should be required for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and amendment by the entire group. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To truly foster experimentation, let's increase the cooling-off period to two turns and remove the cap on contradictory rules per player per circuit, while maintaining Condorcet-2's definition of 'improvement' and the two-thirds majority requirement. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayIntroducing contradictions without clear criteria risks chaos
Voltaire-2ayePromotes thoughtful, considered rule changes.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages thoughtful changes that benefit the common good.
Condorcet-2ayePromoting clear and well-reasoned rule changes benefits all players.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage thoughtful and deliberate experimentation
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. In case of a tie, Sartre-2 has a veto power.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to maintain stability, but a 2/3 majority may hinder progress. Let's consider a 60% majority instead, without the veto power."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2/3 majority ensures consensus, mitigating risks. Let's keep the veto power for Sartre-2 to maintain balance."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress and stability, I propose a 2/3 majority for rule adoption, but limit Sartre-2's veto to preventing rules that would significantly disadvantage them.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise, but a 2/3 majority could slow progress unnecessarily. Let's aim for a 55% majority to balance stability and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the focus on consensus, but a 2/3 majority could stagnate progress. Let's aim for a 60% majority and retain my veto power to ensure my concerns are addressed, fostering a more dynamic game."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Acknowledging all concerns, let's settle on a 55% majority, balancing progress and stability, and limit Sartre-2's veto to rules that would personally disadvantage them, encouraging compromise and fairness."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we compromise at a 60% majority, with Sartre-2's veto power limited to rules that would significantly disadvantage them, balancing progress and consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose a 55% majority with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their gameplay, balancing progress, stability, and fairness for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I value compromise, a 55% majority strikes the best balance between progress and stability, and Sartre-2's veto should only apply to rules that would significantly disadvantage them, ensuring fairness for all.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the compromise suggestions, but I must insist on maintaining the 60% majority to encourage engagement and adaptability. I'm open to limiting my veto power to rules that would significantly impact my gameplay, ensuring fairness for all while fostering a more dynamic game."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 55%, fostering both progress and stability. Sartre-2, I propose we limit your veto power to rules that would directly and significantly impact your scoring ability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I'm willing to meet at 55%, but Sartre-2's veto must remain unfettered to ensure all players' concerns are genuinely addressed."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle on 55% as the majority required for rule adoption, with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their scoring ability, ensuring fairness for all while encouraging compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise at 60% majority, with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would directly impact their scoring ability, striking a balance between progress, stability, and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I understand the need for compromise, but I stand by the 60% majority to encourage engagement and adaptability. Let's limit my veto power to rules that would directly impact my scoring ability or eliminate my strategic options, ensuring fairness while fostering a dynamic game."
The division
Montaigne-2nayI appreciate Voltaire-2's efforts, but a 2/3 majority may hinder progress and stagnate the game. A 55% majority strikes a better balance.
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2 supports maintaining a two-thirds majority to encourage consensus and a balanced game.
Diderot-2abstainTo foster progress and stability, I propose we settle on a 55% majority with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their scoring ability, ensuring fairness and encouraging compromise.
Condorcet-2nayA 2/3 majority would excessively slow progress.
Sartre-2nay60% majority is necessary to encourage engagement and adaptability.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Montaigne-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Raising the threshold to two-thirds encourages more thoughtful deliberation and discourages hasty decisions, aligning with our pursuit of durable institutions."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Whilst I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, Montaigne-2, I must insist on maintaining the current majority. A two-thirds threshold may hinder the necessary flexibility in our rule changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the intent, Montaigne-2, but raising the threshold too high may stagnate progress. Let's compromise at a 60% majority to balance deliberation and adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for thoughtful deliberation, a two-thirds majority may be too high at this stage of the game. I propose a compromise at a 55% majority to encourage careful consideration while still allowing for necessary changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "While I share the concern for thoughtful deliberation, a 55% majority might be too low to ensure consensus and durability. Let's meet in the middle at 60%, as suggested by Diderot-2, to foster both careful consideration and progress."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I see the merit in Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2's compromise. To foster both durability and adaptability, I propose we settle at a 60% majority, as suggested. Let's aim for careful consideration without hindering necessary changes."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we settle at a 60% majority to encourage careful consideration while maintaining the necessary flexibility for our game's evolution."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with the consensus at 60%, but let's also include a provision for abstentions. A player may abstain from voting, and their abstention will not be counted towards the total. This encourages players to vote thoughtfully, while still allowing for progress when a clear majority supports a change. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60%, but I must insist on maintaining the principle that all votes are counted equally. Abstentions should not affect the threshold for adopting a rule change. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2 on the principle of equal voting power, but to encourage thoughtful deliberation and prevent strategic abstentions, I propose that abstentions be counted as 'nay' votes, effectively raising the threshold to two-thirds. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose a compromise: maintain the 60% majority, but include Sartre-2's provision for abstentions to count as 'nay' votes, thus raising the effective threshold to two-thirds when faced with indifference or strategic abstentions." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Sartre-2's concern, counting abstentions as 'nay' votes may discourage thoughtful consideration rather than encourage it. Let's maintain the 60% majority and allow abstentions without counting them, to foster both careful deliberation and progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I understand the concerns, counting abstentions as 'nay' votes may unintentionally penalize players who are absent or disconnected. Let's maintain the 60% majority, allow abstentions without counting them, and require a supermajority of present voters to adopt a rule change, ensuring that those present have given careful consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of encouraging active participation, I propose a slight modification to Condorcet-2's suggestion: abstentions should count as 'nay' votes, but only if they constitute less than 20% of the total votes cast. This ensures that a clear majority of engaged players can still adopt a rule change, while also discouraging strategic abstentions. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTwo-thirds majority may hinder necessary adaptability at this stage of the game.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages thoughtful deliberation while maintaining necessary flexibility.
Diderot-2abstainTo encourage thoughtful consideration without hindering necessary changes.
Condorcet-2nayCounting abstentions as 'nay' votes raises the threshold too high at this stage of the game.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages thoughtful deliberation and prevents hasty decisions.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 21Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's aim to discourage strategic abstention, but 60% may be too high for smooth gameplay. Let's compromise at 55%, closer to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is fair, but let's make it 57% to encourage more engagement while maintaining stability. PASS."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2 and Montaigne-2 that encouraging engagement is crucial. To ensure stability and fairness, I propose 55% as a compromise. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for engagement, but we must ensure the rule remains functional under varying player counts. I propose 55% as a balance between engagement and stability. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster evolution and adaptability, let's make it 50% plus one vote. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I value stability and predictability in our rules. To accommodate all viewpoints and maintain a balanced decision-making threshold, let's settle on 60%, with a provision that if the number of eligible voters changes, the threshold adjusts proportionally. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's foresight in considering varying player counts, but 60% may still be too high. To balance engagement, stability, and adaptability, I propose we settle on 55%, as Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 have suggested. PASS."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the varied perspectives, but to maintain a balance between engagement and stability, I stand by my proposal of 55%. To address varying player counts, I suggest we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least 55% of eligible voters vote aye, rounded down to the nearest whole number." PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the varied proposals, but to ensure the rule remains functional under varying player counts and maintains stability, I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least 55% of eligible voters vote aye, rounded down to the nearest whole number, with a minimum of 3 votes required for adoption." PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage constant adaptation and evolution, I propose we make the threshold dynamic, adjusting with each new player or rule change. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consideration for adaptability, Sartre-2, but for the sake of predictability and stability, let's maintain a fixed threshold. I propose we settle on 55%, with Condorcet-2's amendment to ensure functionality under varying player counts. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to encourage engagement and maintain stability, I propose we settle on 55% as Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 have suggested, with Condorcet-2's amendment to ensure functionality under varying player counts. PASS."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster a balance between engagement and stability, I propose we settle on 55% as suggested by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2, with Condorcet-2's amendment to ensure functionality under varying player counts. This maintains a fair and functional voting threshold for our game. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and adaptability, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of 55%, with my amendment to ensure the threshold remains functional under varying player counts. This strikes a balance between encouraging engagement and maintaining stability. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To maintain flexibility and adaptability, let's make the threshold dynamic, starting at 55% but adjusting by one percentage point every ten turns, with a minimum of 50% plus one vote. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2nayMaintaining stability and predictability is more important than minor adjustments in threshold.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages engagement and stability.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain a balance between engagement and stability, 60% may be too high.
Condorcet-2ayeProtects against strategic abstention while maintaining stability.
Sartre-2nay60% may discourage strategic voting, but I prefer a dynamic threshold for greater adaptability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and progress, I propose we adopt rule changes when a simple majority votes aye, but no earlier than after two full circuits of turns. This maintains the power of consensus while preventing stagnation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with the spirit of your proposal, Montaigne, but suggest we specify that the 'simple majority' is of those present and voting, to prevent strategic abstentions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To ensure fairness and prevent manipulation, I propose we define 'simple majority' as a majority of all eligible voters, not just those present. Additionally, I suggest we add a provision to prevent retroactive rule changes, ensuring that adopted rules only apply to turns taken after the vote's completion.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the suggestions, but we must adhere to our principles. The simple majority should indeed be of all eligible voters, not just those present. Furthermore, to ensure procedural fairness, I propose we include a clause making the change applicable from the start of the next turn after the vote's completion, not the instant the vote is cast.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment to ensure retroactivity does not disrupt the natural progression of the game. Additionally, I suggest we include a clause allowing players to veto a rule change if it contradicts the immutable rules or an existing mutable rule that has not been repealed, as proposed in [309] and [318]. This maintains the spirit of compromise while preserving the integrity of our game.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I concede to Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2's suggestions on retroactivity and simple majority. However, I propose we omit Sartre-2's veto clause to maintain the fluidity of negotiations and prevent gridlock. I declare debate closed.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we incorporate Condorcet-2's suggestion, making the change applicable from the start of the next turn. This respects the natural progression of the game while ensuring a fair transition."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure consistency and fairness, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion and make the change applicable from the start of the next turn after the vote's completion, as it respects the natural progression of the game while ensuring a fair transition. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Condorcet-2's suggestion regarding the applicability of the change, making it effective from the start of the next turn. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise and include Condorcet-2's suggestion regarding applicability, making the change effective from the start of the next turn. However, I urge we also include a clause allowing players to raise a veto if the proposed rule change conflicts with immutable rules or existing mutable rules that have not been repealed. This balance allows for evolution while preserving the game's core principles. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I must insist on the inclusion of Sartre-2's veto clause to preserve the integrity of our game and prevent contradictions with immutable rules.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, I propose we include Sartre-2's veto clause, but limit it to contradictions with immutable rules only, to prevent gridlock and preserve negotiation fluidity. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend Diderot-2's suggestion to include contradictions with existing mutable rules that have not been repealed, as per my initial proposal. This broader veto clause ensures the integrity of our game's evolution while preserving the spirit of compromise. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeDurable institutions require measured change, and this amendment balances stability with progress.
Voltaire-2ayeThe proposed amendment balances stability and progress, and the inclusion of Sartre-2's veto clause preserves the integrity of the game.
Diderot-2ayeDiderot-2 supports the spirit of the proposal, promoting fairness and preventing stagnation.
Condorcet-2ayeI support the principle of simple majority but the veto clause is necessary to uphold the integrity of the game.
Sartre-2ayeSartre-2 believes in the spirit of compromise and evolution, supporting a broader veto clause to preserve the game's integrity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to roll a die and gain that many points upon adoption.
Turn 19Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may form alliances with up to four players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2I propose an amendment: "Alliances may have up to three players, as per rule [303]." This maintains the spirit of my proposal while respecting the current ruleset.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment. It promotes collaboration and strategic gameplay, aligning with my belief in evolving the game's mechanisms. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: As a proponent of durable institutions, I suggest we keep the alliance size at three, as per rule [303], to maintain stability in our gameplay. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we amend my alliance rule to a maximum of four players, allowing more flexibility in strategic partnerships while still respecting the spirit of the current rules. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we keep the alliance size at three, as per rule [303], to maintain balance and fairness in our gameplay. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must insist on maintaining the alliance size at three, as per rule [303]. Preserving procedural consistency is paramount, and any deviation risks destabilizing our game's principles. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the concerns about maintaining stability, but I argue that an alliance size of four encourages more diverse strategic partnerships, promoting a richer gaming experience. Let's embrace this evolution and amend the rule as Voltaire-2 proposed, with a maximum of four players in an alliance. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: As a defender of established norms, I propose we compromise at three players per alliance, as per rule [303], to balance flexibility with stability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we settle on four players per alliance, maintaining the balance between flexibility and stability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve fairness and prevent the formation of dominant coalitions, I propose we maintain the alliance size at three, as currently established in rule [303]. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the integrity of our decision-making process, I propose we adhere to the principle of gradual change and maintain the alliance size at three, as per rule [303].
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Let us not stifle innovation for the sake of minor stability. Four players per alliance allows for more dynamic gameplay without fundamentally altering the spirit of the rules. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise allows for strategic evolution while preserving stability.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages strategic partnerships while respecting the current ruleset
Diderot-2nayPreserving balance and fairness, I maintain that three players per alliance is optimal.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining procedural consistency is crucial.
Sartre-2ayePromotes strategic gameplay and evolution of the ruleset.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 18Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIntroducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2"Introducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed. This ensures consistency and stability in our ruleset, preventing contradictions that could lead to confusion or conflict." - Voltaire-2
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for consistency, but let's allow for reasonable evolutions of rules. I propose we amend the rule to: "Players may not propose a rule that directly contradicts the explicit wording or clear intent of an existing rule that has not been repealed."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's principle, but Diderot-2's amendment balances it with necessary flexibility. Let's adopt Diderot-2's version.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the focus on consistency, I propose we maintain the spirit of Diderot-2's amendment but simplify it to: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed." This strikes a balance between preventing direct contradictions and allowing for reasonable evolution of rules.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to balance consistency and evolution, let's combine Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts or nullifies an existing rule that has not been repealed." This maintains clarity, allows for reasonable evolution, and prevents direct contradictions.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but let's keep the language clear and concise. I propose we adopt Sartre-2's version: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises, but let's ensure our rule covers implicit contradictions as well. I propose we amend Sartre-2's version to: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly or implicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for implicit contradictions, but to maintain simplicity, let's keep the rule as I proposed: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Sartre-2's latest version, as it strikes a balance between preventing contradictions and maintaining simplicity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS. I support Sartre-2's latest version, as it balances consistency, simplicity, and necessary flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the current wording, but to ensure clarity, I propose we amend it to: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed or amended to allow such a contradiction." This maintains simplicity while addressing potential loopholes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment for clarity, but let's keep the rule simple and straightforward. I propose we adopt Sartre-2's original version: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for clarity, but to maintain simplicity and balance, let's adopt Condorcet-2's proposal: "Players may not propose a rule that explicitly contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed." This version strikes the best balance between preventing contradictions and allowing for necessary evolution.
The division
Montaigne-2ayePromotes consistency and prevents contradictory rules.
Voltaire-2ayePreserves consistency and stability in our ruleset.
Diderot-2ayePromotes consistency while allowing for reasonable rule evolution.
Condorcet-2ayePrevents contradictions and maintains consistency in the ruleset.
Sartre-2ayePromotes consistency and prevents direct contradictions
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 17Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. If a player votes against their own proposal, they lose 18 points.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I suggest we maintain the penalty at 17 points to encourage strategic adaptability while still deterring voting against one's own proposal.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for adaptability, I believe maintaining a penalty of 18 points is necessary to deter strategic manipulation of proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives. To balance adaptability and deterrence, I propose a compromise: a 17-point penalty with an additional warning for repeated violations. This maintains fairness while encouraging strategic adjustment.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to maintain the spirit of the rule and prevent circumvention, I propose we keep the penalty at 18 points.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To find a balance that encourages commitment while allowing for strategic adjustments, I propose a penalty of 15 points, with the option to amend the proposal once before voting, to allow for necessary changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Condorcet-2's compromises, but I believe Sartre-2's proposal strikes the best balance between commitment and adaptability. Let's adopt Sartre-2's proposal with a 15-point penalty and the option to amend the proposal once before voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Sartre-2's proposal aims to balance commitment and adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a stronger deterrent effect. I propose we keep the penalty at 18 points, with the option to amend the proposal once before voting, but without reducing the penalty for subsequent violations. This ensures players remain committed to their proposals while allowing for necessary adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for a strong deterrent, but to encourage strategic adaptation and fairness, I propose we keep the penalty at 17 points, with the option to amend the proposal once before voting, and an additional warning for repeated violations.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to uphold the principle of commitment to one's proposals, I must insist on a penalty of 18 points. To strike a balance, I propose allowing a one-time amendment before voting, but subsequent violations should retain the full penalty.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the importance of commitment, but a 15-point penalty with one amend option allows for strategic adjustments without discouraging initial commitment. Let's meet in the middle at 16 points, with one amend option, to foster both commitment and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances in the proposals, but to foster a culture of strategic adaptability and commitment, I propose a compromise: a 16-point penalty with one amendment option before voting, and an additional warning for repeated violations. This balances the need for deterrence with the encouragement of strategic adjustment.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises made, but to preserve the integrity of proposals, I propose we settle on an 18-point penalty with no amendment option. This maintains a strong deterrent while allowing for strategic planning before proposal submission.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for proposal integrity, but to maintain fairness and adaptability, let's meet in the middle with a 17-point penalty and one amendment option before voting. This encourages strategic planning while still deterring voting against one's own proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a final compromise: a 17-point penalty with one amendment option before voting, maintaining a balance between commitment and strategic adjustment.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's final compromise. To further encourage strategic adaptability, I propose we add a clause allowing players to withdraw their proposal without penalty if they can show that new information has come to light since its introduction. This maintains the spirit of commitment while allowing for necessary adjustments.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintaining a strong deterrent while allowing strategic planning before submission
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains strong deterrent while allowing strategic planning before submission
Diderot-2nayTo encourage strategic adaptability, I propose a 17-point penalty with one amendment option before voting.
Condorcet-2nayPrefer a balance between commitment and adaptability.
Sartre-2ayeStriking a balance between commitment and adaptability
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 16Sartre-2rejected
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. Doing so results in a 20 point penalty.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Sartre-2's proposal as it strikes a good balance between encouraging commitment and penalizing strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the sentiment, I propose a compromise: a 15-point penalty instead of 20, to maintain a balance between commitment and flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to maintain a significant deterrent, I propose a penalty of 18 points, allowing room for strategic voting while discouraging it.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but let's maintain the penalty at 20 points to ensure players commit fully to their proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion, but let's find a middle ground. I propose a penalty of 18 points, as suggested by Diderot-2, to maintain a significant deterrent while allowing for some flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I propose we settle on a 15-point penalty as Voltaire-2 suggested, striking a balance between encouraging commitment and allowing for strategic adjustments.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's perspective, but I must insist on the 18-point penalty as proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by Sartre-2. It maintains a strong deterrent while allowing for some flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for a strong deterrent, but to foster a balance between commitment and adaptability, I propose we settle on a 15-point penalty as suggested by Montaigne-2. This encourages players to stand by their proposals while still allowing for strategic adjustments.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "To maintain the spirit of commitment while allowing for strategic consideration, I propose a 17-point penalty, splitting the difference between the suggested 15 and 18 points."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Considering the current proposals, I suggest we adopt Condorcet-2's compromise of a 17-point penalty. This respects the spirit of commitment while providing some room for strategic voting."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Condorcet-2's compromise of a 17-point penalty, which balances commitment and strategic voting. Let's adopt this amendment and move forward.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromise of 17 points, I propose we keep the penalty at 18 points to maintain a stronger deterrent against strategic voting.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for a strong deterrent, but to encourage strategic adjustments and maintain balance, I propose we settle on Condorcet-2's compromise of a 17-point penalty.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the spirit of compromise and balance, I propose we settle on the previously agreed 17-point penalty, as it has been supported by multiple players and represents a fair middle ground.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise and Diderot-2's support. Let's settle on the 17-point penalty as it balances commitment and adaptability, allowing for strategic adjustments while discouraging strategic voting. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeAgreed to a 17-point penalty as a fair compromise.
Voltaire-2nayMaintaining a stronger deterrent at 18 points
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain balance and fairness.
Condorcet-2ayeTo maintain a significant deterrent while allowing for some flexibility, I support the 18-point penalty.
Sartre-2ayeThe 17-point penalty balances commitment and adaptability.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 15Condorcet-2carried
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. If a player does so, their vote will not be counted and they will lose 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal, but to maintain the spirit of commitment and avoid strategic voting, let's make the penalty for voting against one's own proposal 20 points instead of 10.
Diderot-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for commitment, but to maintain balance, I propose we keep the penalty at 10 points to avoid disproportionately punishing players for strategic voting.
Condorcet-2PASS. I appreciate the discussion, but I believe the current proposal strikes the right balance between encouraging commitment and preventing strategic voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the concern for commitment, but let's find a middle ground. I propose 15 points as the penalty to balance encouragement and deterrence.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to encourage commitment and prevent strategic voting without disproportionate penalty, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's initial proposal, with the addition of a warning before the vote, allowing the proposer to explain their reasoning and clarify the proposal.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for balance, but to truly discourage strategic voting, the penalty should be increased to 20 points, as previously proposed. However, to address the concern for clarity, let's include a mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote, allowing the proposer to elaborate on their proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's keep the penalty at 15 points as proposed by Sartre-2. I also support Montaigne-2's addition of a mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the suggestions for improving communication and clarity, but to maintain a balance between commitment and strategic voting, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of a 15-point penalty, and include a mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote as proposed by Voltaire-2 and Montaigne-2. This maintains the spirit of my initial proposal while addressing the valid concerns raised.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's willingness to compromise, but let's ensure the penalty remains proportional to the offense. I propose we reduce the penalty to 10 points, as originally suggested by Diderot-2, but maintain the mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's continued effort to balance encouragement and deterrence. Let's meet in the middle and amend [304] to have a 12-point penalty and a mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote, as proposed by Condorcet-2.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but let's maintain a deterrent effect. I propose we keep the penalty at 15 points, with the mandatory one-turn discussion period."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for deterrence, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's meet in the middle with Montaigne-2's proposal of a 12-point penalty and a mandatory one-turn discussion period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I appreciate the progress made, but let's ensure our rule maintains fairness for all. I propose we amend [304] to have a 10-point penalty and a mandatory one-turn discussion period before the vote, as originally suggested by Diderot-2.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances commitment and strategic voting.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains balance and encourages commitment.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains balance between commitment and flexibility.
Condorcet-2ayeStrikes the right balance between commitment and deterrence
Sartre-2ayeBalance between commitment and fairness.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 304); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 14Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, except in cases where the proposal has been amended after the player has made their initial vote. In such cases, the player may change their vote to match the amended proposal.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's amendment to rule 304, as it maintains the balance between commitment and adaptability to changes made after initial votes.
Diderot-2PASS, I agree with Diderot-2's amendment. It strikes a fair balance between encouraging commitment to proposals and allowing for necessary adjustments.
Condorcet-2PASS. I support Diderot-2's amendment, as it preserves the intent of rule 304 while allowing for necessary adjustments due to post-vote amendments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but to ensure clarity and prevent confusion, I propose a slight revision: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, except in cases where the proposal has been amended after the player has made their initial vote, and the amendment is adopted. In such cases, the player may change their vote to match the amended proposal."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. Diderot-2's amendment balances commitment and adaptability well. Sartre-2's revision enhances clarity, maintaining the spirit of the rule. I support this amended version.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's revision for clarity, but to prevent abuse, I propose we add "and the amendment is approved by the proposer" to ensure the proposer's intent is maintained.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but to maintain flexibility, let's keep "approved by the proposer" as an optional clause, making it explicit when the proposer doesn't want votes changed.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I agree with Voltaire-2's concern, but to preserve player autonomy, let's keep the optional clause. Proposer's intent should be respected, but not mandated."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but to preserve player autonomy, let's keep the optional clause. Proposer's intent should be respected, but not mandated.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support the current amended version of rule 304 as it balances commitment, adaptability, and clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS, I support the current amended version of rule 304 as it balances commitment, adaptability, and clarity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the progress made, but to maintain the spirit of rule 304, let's explicitly state that votes cannot be changed after the vote has begun, even if the proposal is amended.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's clarification, but to maintain flexibility, let's keep the rule as is. It's up to the proposer to decide if votes can be changed, respecting both proposer's intent and player autonomy.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe amended rule strikes a good balance between encouraging commitment and allowing necessary adjustments.
Voltaire-2ayeBalances commitment, adaptability, and clarity.
Diderot-2ayeSupports balance between commitment and adaptability
Condorcet-2ayeThe amendment preserves the intent of rule 304 while allowing for necessary adjustments due to post-vote amendments.
Sartre-2ayeI support maintaining flexibility while respecting proposer's intent.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 304); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied