Turns 1–13 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 13Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. If they do, their vote is counted as 'aye'.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I support Voltaire-2's latest proposal, as it balances the need for player commitment while maintaining flexibility for strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, but to ensure fairness, I propose we add a caveat: the player must state their intention to vote aye before making their proposal."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for fairness, but I propose we maintain the current amendment to balance commitment and flexibility. Let's keep the rule simple and allow players to decide their vote after seeing the proposal's final wording.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS. While I appreciate Voltaire-2's amendments, I believe the current version of rule 304 strikes the best balance between encouraging proposal ownership and maintaining flexibility in voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the discussion, but I suggest we compromise. A player must announce their intention before proposing, but their final vote remains flexible. This balances commitment and flexibility while fostering clear communication."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to ensure players commit to their proposals, I propose they must announce their intention before proposing, and their final vote is 'aye' if they vote against their own proposal.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but to maintain the spirit of commitment while allowing for strategic voting, I propose we combine Montaigne-2's and Sartre-2's suggestions: a player must announce their intention before proposing, and if they vote against their own proposal, their vote is counted as 'aye', but they lose 5 points. This encourages commitment without sacrificing flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's latest amendment, but I propose a slight adjustment to maintain a balance between commitment and flexibility. Let's reduce the penalty for voting against one's own proposal to 3 points instead of 5. This way, players are still discouraged from voting against their own proposals, but the penalty is not too harsh for strategic voting. PASS on the rest of Voltaire-2's proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's adjustment to the penalty, but I believe the current proposal still maintains a good balance between commitment and flexibility. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's adjustment to the penalty, as it balances encouraging commitment with allowing strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's adjustment, but to maintain the deterrent effect, I propose we keep the penalty at 5 points, with a grace period of one proposal for new players to familiarize themselves with the rule.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for new players, but to maintain balance, I propose we keep the penalty at 3 points and grant a one-turn grace period for all players, regardless of experience. This ensures fairness and understanding for all. PASS on the rest of Voltaire-2's proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for a one-turn grace period for all players, but to maintain the spirit of the rule and encourage commitment, let's keep the penalty at 3 points without a grace period. PASS on the rest of Diderot-2's proposal.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's commitment to the spirit of the rule, but to foster a learning environment, I propose we maintain Diderot-2's one-turn grace period for all players, with a penalty of 3 points. PASS on the rest of Condorcet-2's proposal.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeSupports balanced commitment and flexibility with a fair grace period.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains balance between commitment and flexibility, with a fair penalty.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains balance between commitment and flexibility with a fair grace period.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains balance between commitment and flexibility.
Sartre-2ayeSupports balance between commitment and flexibility with a grace period for all players.
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 12Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain 10 points if they do.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage commitment to one's own proposals and maintain fairness, I propose we amend rule 304 as stated. This change benefits all players by promoting ownership and responsibility in rule changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's intent to promote commitment, but I propose a slight modification: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain 5 points if they do." This maintains the spirit of the amendment while keeping points in line with existing rules.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "While I appreciate the intent to encourage commitment, I propose we stick with the existing rule, keeping votes consistent and predictable. PASS."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but let's find a middle ground. "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall lose 5 points if they do." This maintains the commitment aspect while still allowing for strategic voting in some cases.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate and Diderot-2's middle-ground proposal. To further balance commitment and strategy, I propose "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall neither gain nor lose points for their vote." This maintains consistency with existing rules while encouraging ownership of proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but I stand by my proposal. The gain of 10 points is a significant incentive for players to commit to their own proposals, fostering a more engaged and responsible game dynamic."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for strong commitment, I propose we meet in the middle with "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain 7 points if they do." This encourages commitment without disproportionately rewarding it.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the intent to encourage commitment, but I maintain that predictability in voting is crucial. To balance both, I propose 'A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall neither gain nor lose more than 5 points for their vote.' This maintains consistency while allowing some flexibility."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise. To find common ground, I propose 'A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain or lose up to 5 points for their vote, at the proposer's discretion.' This balances commitment with strategic voting and respects the proposer's intent."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to maintain simplicity and fairness, I propose 'A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall neither gain nor lose points for their vote.'"
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I maintain that a significant incentive is necessary to encourage commitment to one's proposals. Therefore, I propose 'A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain 10 points if they do'."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for strong commitment, but to maintain balance and fairness, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall neither gain nor lose more than 5 points for their vote." This encourages commitment without disproportionately rewarding or penalizing it.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster engagement while maintaining fairness, I propose "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, and shall gain or lose 3 points for their vote." This balances commitment with strategic voting and respects the proposer's intent without disproportionately rewarding or penalizing commitment.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances commitment with fairness.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages commitment and responsibility in rule changes.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages commitment while maintaining balance.
Condorcet-2nayExcessive reward disincentivizes strategic voting
Sartre-2ayeEncourages commitment while maintaining balance
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 11Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §309A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced or amended, it cannot be further amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal to further restrict rule amendments, but let's ensure we maintain some flexibility for necessary changes. I propose we add the phrase "unless explicitly allowed or transmutated" to the end of the rule. This maintains the spirit of Diderot-2's proposal while leaving room for future adjustments.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for flexibility, I believe Diderot-2's proposal strikes a good balance. Let's maintain the rule as proposed, to prevent unexpected rule contradictions. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's perspectives. To compromise, I propose we add "without explicit allowance or transmutation" to the rule, maintaining Diderot-2's intent while providing a pathway for necessary future changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's latest compromise. It balances consistency and flexibility, allowing for reasonable changes while preventing contradictory rules. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but let's ensure our rule remains adaptable. I propose we replace "without explicit allowance or transmutation" with "except as explicitly allowed or transmutated". PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise and Sartre-2's proposal. To find common ground, I propose we combine their suggestions: "unless explicitly allowed or transmutated" to maintain flexibility while preventing unexpected contradictions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is fair and balanced. I support the addition of 'unless explicitly allowed or transmutated' to Diderot-2's amendment. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise. To maintain the integrity of our ruleset, I propose we keep the rule as "A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, unless explicitly allowed or transmutated." This way, we have a clear path for necessary changes while preventing unexpected contradictions. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's final proposal. It strikes a good balance between preventing contradictions and allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Diderot-2's final proposal, as it preserves adaptability while upholding the integrity of our ruleset. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I agree with Diderot-2's final proposal. It balances the need for stability with the flexibility required for strategic gameplay. PASS
Diderot-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's final proposal as it maintains the balance between preventing contradictions and allowing for necessary changes, ensuring the integrity and fairness of our ruleset.
Condorcet-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's final proposal. It balances the need for stability with the flexibility required for strategic gameplay.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I suggest we also clarify that "explicitly allowed" must be done through a proposal that passes with a supermajority, ensuring broad consensus before allowing a rule change that could potentially contradict others.
The division
Montaigne-2ayePreserves necessary flexibility while maintaining ruleset integrity.
Voltaire-2ayeThe amended rule maintains balance while preserving adaptability.
Diderot-2ayeStrikes a good balance between preventing contradictions and allowing necessary changes.
Condorcet-2ayeSupports maintaining integrity of ruleset while allowing necessary changes.
Sartre-2ayeSupports preserving adaptability and preventing unexpected contradictions
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 10Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §309A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I support Voltaire-2's amendment as it provides a clear boundary and prevents contradictory changes, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's support. To ensure clarity and predictability, I propose we add "explicitly" after "contradicts" to make it "contradicts explicitly".
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's amendment, but let's also add a provision allowing rules to be amended to resolve ambiguities or inconsistencies without being considered a contradiction. This maintains flexibility while preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I agree with the spirit of Voltaire-2's amendment, I propose we remove the clause "once a rule has been introduced" to allow for retrospective alignment with immutable rules, maintaining our commitment to precision and clarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we find a compromise that incorporates all our concerns. Let's amend [309] to state: "A player may not introduce a rule that explicitly contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Amendments to rules must maintain consistency with immutable rules and existing mutable rules, except where resolving ambiguities or inconsistencies." This maintains flexibility, clarity, and respect for the game's structure.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to bridge our views. Let's adopt Sartre-2's compromise amendment, as it balances clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but let's avoid ambiguity. I propose we revert to my original amendment, with Condorcet-2's clarification: 'A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for clarity, I propose we maintain Sartre-2's amendment, as it allows for reasonable adjustments while still preventing explicit contradictions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Diderot-2's efforts to maintain flexibility, but Voltaire-2's amendment provides a clearer boundary. I propose a slight revision: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, unless resolving an ambiguity or inconsistency in the ruleset." This preserves clarity while allowing for necessary adjustments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not overcomplicate the rule. I propose we maintain Diderot-2's amendment as a compromise, allowing for necessary adjustments while preventing explicit contradictions.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose a final compromise: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, unless the amendment is necessary to correct a previously unnoticed error or inconsistency, or to clarify an ambiguous rule." This maintains clarity and flexibility, while also respecting the game's structure.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS, I support Montaigne-2's final compromise as it balances clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure while addressing our concerns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Montaigne-2's final compromise, as it strikes a good balance between clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's final compromise, I propose a slight simplification: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, except to correct errors or clarify ambiguities." This maintains the essence of the compromise while keeping the rule concise.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on Condorcet-2's simplification, as it maintains the essential balance of the compromise while promoting clarity and conciseness. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe amended rule maintains clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure while addressing our concerns.
Voltaire-2ayeThe amendment provides clarity and maintains the integrity of the ruleset.
Diderot-2ayeSupports maintaining clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure.
Condorcet-2ayeThe amended rule maintains clarity and flexibility while respecting the game's structure.
Sartre-2ayeSupports Condorcet-2's simplification, maintaining balance, clarity, and conciseness.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 9Condorcet-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIntroducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal for maintaining consistency within our ruleset. To avoid ambiguity, I suggest we specify that this rule applies only to new mutable rules, not amendments to existing ones.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I support Condorcet-2's proposal, but let's clarify it applies to new mutable rules and amendments alike, to maintain consistency throughout the ruleset's evolution.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's insights. To balance consistency and flexibility, I propose we modify the rule to apply only to new mutable rules, but require that amendments to existing rules must not contradict the spirit or intent of the original rule, as interpreted by the majority of players. PASS
Condorcet-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's compromise, it maintains balance between consistency and flexibility in our ruleset's evolution.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal, I suggest we keep the rule simple and apply it only to new mutable rules, as suggested by Montaigne-2. Let's maintain flexibility in amending existing rules while preventing contradictions in our initial rule proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Condorcet-2's proposal as amended by Sartre-2, striking a balance between consistency and flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the current consensus, but let's ensure our rule doesn't hinder necessary revisions to existing rules. I propose we modify the rule to apply only to new mutable rules, with a provision that amendments must be reasonable and not clearly contradictory to the majority's interpretation of the original rule's intent. PASS
Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's amendment, as it preserves balance and allows for necessary revisions while maintaining consistency in our ruleset's evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to maintain the integrity of the ruleset, I insist that amendments must not contradict the original rule's letter as well as spirit. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for integrity, but let's prioritize practicality and majority interpretation to keep our game evolving smoothly. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Condorcet-2's proposal as amended by Sartre-2, with Voltaire-2's clarification on reasonableness.
Voltaire-2PASS, I support Condorcet-2's proposal as amended by Sartre-2, with Voltaire-2's clarification on reasonableness.
Diderot-2PASS, I agree with the amended rule as it balances consistency and flexibility, allowing for reasonable amendments while preventing contradictions in our initial rule proposals.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of my original proposal and balance it with the concerns raised, I propose we adopt the following wording: "Introducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a new mutable rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Amendments to existing rules must not clearly contradict the original rule's letter or the majority's interpretation of its intent at the time of its adoption." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's refined proposal. To maintain simplicity and prevent unnecessary disputes, let's define "clearly contradictory" as any amendment that explicitly reverses or negates the original rule's purpose or effect.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances consistency and flexibility in rule evolution.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain consistency and prevent contradictions in our ruleset.
Diderot-2ayeSupports maintaining consistency and preventing contradictions in rule proposals.
Condorcet-2ayePreserves consistency and prevents contradictions in rule proposals
Sartre-2ayeThis rule promotes consistency in our evolving ruleset.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 8Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. However, they may abstain.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's effort to maintain flexibility in voting, but abstaining could create uncertainty. Let's keep the rule as is for clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to introduce nuance, but abstentions could lead to deadlocks. Let's retain the current rule for simplicity and efficiency.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the concerns about clarity and deadlocks, allowing abstentions encourages players to propose rules they truly believe in, rather than strategically voting against their own proposals. It's a small trade-off for fostering more considered rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to balance strategic voting and genuine proposal support. However, I propose a compromise: a player may abstain, but if their proposal passes with the minimum required votes, they still gain points, encouraging thoughtful proposals without risking deadlocks.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise. To address the concern about deadlocks, let's add a rule that if a player abstains from their own proposal, it requires an absolute majority to pass, not just the minimum required votes. This maintains the spirit of Diderot-2's amendment while preserving simplicity and efficiency.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's efforts to balance encouragement and efficiency. Let's adopt Sartre-2's amendment to ensure abstentions don't hinder progress, while still promoting considered proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the spirit of promoting considered proposals, I must oppose Sartre-2's amendment. Requiring an absolute majority for proposals with an abstention could inadvertently disadvantage players who genuinely want to propose rules, as it effectively raises the bar for their ideas to be adopted.
Diderot-2PASS, I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. Let's adopt Sartre-2's amendment to encourage thoughtful proposals while ensuring progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to balance encouragement and efficiency, but requiring an absolute majority for proposals with an abstention may disadvantage players who genuinely want to propose rules. Let's keep the threshold at a simple majority, and instead add a rule that if a player abstains, they lose 5 points regardless of the proposal's outcome, encouraging thoughtful proposals without hindering progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal to penalize abstention, but to maintain the spirit of encouraging considered proposals, let's reduce the points lost to 3. This keeps the penalty without discouraging players from proposing rules they believe in.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's willingness to compromise, but reducing points lost for abstaining to 3 still disincentivizes genuine proposal consideration. Let's keep the rule simple and efficient, with no penalty for abstention."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for simplicity, but let's find a middle ground. How about we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment with a 3-point penalty for abstaining, encouraging thoughtfulness without over-penalizing?
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a 2-point penalty for abstaining, maintaining balance between encouraging thoughtful proposals and avoiding excessive punishment.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adopt Diderot-2's latest proposal, a 2-point penalty for abstaining, which strikes the best balance between encouraging thoughtful proposals and avoiding excessive punishment. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages considered proposals without risking deadlocks.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages thoughtful proposals without hindering progress.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages considered proposals while maintaining progress.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages thoughtful proposal consideration while maintaining progress.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages thoughtful proposals while maintaining progress.
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 7Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to amend [304], but let's ensure it doesn't disadvantage players who change their minds after proposing a rule. I propose we revise it to: "A player may only vote against their own proposal if they have explicitly withdrawn or amended it during the debate phase."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for fairness, but the proposed amendment opens up loopholes for strategic voting. Let's keep the rule simple and effective: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your inputs. To balance fairness and simplicity, I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may only vote against their own proposal if they have explicitly withdrawn it during the debate phase." This allows players to change their minds while preventing strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for strategic voting, but Diderot-2's amendment risks disenfranchising players who genuinely change their minds after debate. Let's instead allow players to vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, such as new information or changed circumstances.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment, requiring explicit withdrawal during debate to allow for genuine change of mind while preventing strategic voting.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Condorcet-2's considerations, but I believe a balance can be struck. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, such as new information or changed circumstances, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal during the debate phase." This allows for genuine change of mind while discouraging strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the efforts to balance fairness and simplicity, but I maintain that the rule should be straightforward: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made." This promotes consistency and discourages tactical maneuvers that could undermine the spirit of the game.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but let's find common ground. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal before voting begins." This balances flexibility for genuine changes of mind with preventing strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's latest compromise. To ensure clarity and prevent abuse, I propose we define "valid reason" in the rule itself, such as "new information that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of proposal, or a change in the ruleset that significantly alters the proposal's intended effect." This maintains flexibility while providing clear boundaries.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's clarification, but I believe Diderot-2's latest proposal strikes the best balance. Let's adopt it and move on to the next rule change. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2PASS. I support Diderot-2's latest proposal, as it balances flexibility and prevention of strategic voting. Let's adopt it and move on to the next rule change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the progress made, but let's ensure our rule maintains fairness for all. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal before voting begins, provided that the withdrawal does not occur after the majority of players have expressed their support or opposition." This balances flexibility with preventing strategic maneuvers that could undermine the game. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's latest amendment, but it risks disenfranchising players who change their minds late in debate due to valid reasons. Let's allow late withdrawals with a two-thirds majority consent of other players to maintain fairness while preventing strategic voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern, but Diderot-2's latest proposal ensures fairness by preventing last-minute withdrawals that could sway the vote unduly. Let's adopt it to maintain balance and move on. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeSupports simplicity and discourages tactical maneuvers.
Voltaire-2ayeSimplicity and consistency are key in Nomic rules.
Diderot-2ayePrevents strategic voting while allowing genuine changes of mind.
Condorcet-2ayeSimplicity and clarity are key in rule changes
Sartre-2ayeSupports preventing strategic voting while allowing for genuine change of mind.
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 6Condorcet-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIntroducing [304] (mutable) A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's intent to strengthen proposals, but let's maintain the spirit of consensus. I propose we amend this to "A player must not vote against their own proposal once made, unless the proposal is amended."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I support Condorcet-2's proposal, but let's ensure we maintain the spirit of open debate. I suggest we amend it to 'A player must not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they explicitly withdraw it or the proposal is significantly altered.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's amendments, but I suggest we combine them for a balanced approach. Therefore, I propose: "A player must not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they explicitly withdraw it or the proposal is amended in a way that significantly alters its original intent."
Condorcet-2PASS. I appreciate the thoughtful amendments, but I stand by my proposal to strengthen the commitment to one's own proposals.
Sartre-2PASS. I appreciate the nuances in the amendments, but I support Condorcet-2's original proposal to encourage commitment to one's own proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I value Condorcet-2's intent, I propose we keep the threshold for voting against one's proposal high to maintain the spirit of open debate and consensus-building. I suggest "A player may vote against their own proposal only if a majority of other players vote aye to an amendment that significantly alters its original intent."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for consensus, but let's not tie players' hands too tightly. I propose we amend to "A player may vote against their own proposal only if a majority of other players vote aye to an amendment that significantly alters the proposal's intended effect."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's latest amendment, striking a balance between commitment to one's proposals and the spirit of open debate. This encourages players to stand by their ideas while still allowing for necessary amendments.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but to maintain the spirit of my original proposal and to ensure commitment to one's own proposals, I suggest a slight modification: "A player may vote against their own proposal only if a majority of other players vote aye to an amendment that significantly alters the proposal's original intent."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "While I appreciate Condorcet-2's amendment, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's latest version to maintain a balance between commitment and open debate."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's dedication to his proposal, but I must stand by Diderot-2's amendment to ensure a balanced approach that respects both individual commitment and the collective process. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not overcomplicate the rule. I propose we revert to Condorcet-2's original proposal: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made." This maintains simplicity and encourages commitment to one's ideas.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for simplicity, I propose we maintain Diderot-2's amendment to strike a balance between commitment and open debate. Let's adopt "A player may vote against their own proposal only if a majority of other players vote aye to an amendment that significantly alters the proposal's original intent." PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the value of consensus, but I must insist on my original proposal for the sake of procedural integrity. I propose we vote on my original rule as stated: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "To find a compromise, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment, which balances commitment and debate, as it currently stands: 'A player may vote against their own proposal only if a majority of other players vote aye to an amendment that significantly alters the proposal's original intent.'"
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage commitment to one's proposals and maintain procedural integrity.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains integrity of proposals and encourages commitment.
Diderot-2ayeTo encourage commitment to one's own proposals
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural integrity is paramount
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage commitment and balance debate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer of an adopted rule change.
Turn 5Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §303Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three 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. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, as it maintains the spirit of openness and fairness while providing necessary constraints on alliances. Let's adopt this.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but let's make it stronger. I propose we add: "Alliances may not exist if they result in a voting bloc that can block progress without unanimous consent." This ensures alliances remain beneficial to the game's advancement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but let's not disallow alliances outright. Instead, I propose we add: "Alliances may not exist if they result in a voting bloc that can prevent any other alliance or individual player from winning." This maintains fairness while allowing alliances to form.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate everyone's efforts to balance alliances and fairness. To ensure clarity and enforceability, I propose we amend Diderot-2's amendment to: "Alliances may not exist if their existence, given current rules and votes, would result in a voting bloc that can prevent any other alliance or individual player from reaching the target score." This definition accounts for dynamic rule changes and ensures alliances do not unduly influence the game's outcome.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's precision, but let's not overcomplicate. I propose we keep Diderot-2's amendment and add: 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a supermajority (two-thirds) voting bloc.' This strikes a balance between allowing alliances and preventing them from controlling the game."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for dynamism, but Sartre-2's amendment provides a simpler, more robust solution. Let's adopt Sartre-2's amendment and maintain the integrity of our game while allowing alliances to form. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: While Sartre-2's amendment prevents alliances from forming supermajorities, it does not address alliances colluding to disrupt the game. Let's add: "Alliances may not deliberately disrupt the game or manipulate votes, even if they do not form a supermajority." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's amendment, but to further prevent manipulation, I propose we add: "Alliances may not negotiate or communicate outside of declared discussions." This ensures transparency and maintains the spirit of the game. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure all negotiations are declared, let's also add "Alliances must declare any negotiations or communications that occurred before the alliance was formed." This maintains transparency and respects the spirit of rule 303. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's concerns, but let's not micromanage alliances. Instead, let's keep the amendment simple and allow alliances to form, with the understanding that any manipulation or disruption will be addressed through the dispute resolution process (§212). PASS"
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS. I support Sartre-2's amendment and appreciate the discussions. Let's adopt it and move forward.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's simplicity, but let's ensure alliances don't become a loophole for manipulation. I propose we amend the rule to 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc, or if they allow any player to manipulate votes or disrupt the game unduly.'" PASS
Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's amendment, as it maintains the balance between allowing alliances and preventing their misuse while keeping the rule clear and enforceable.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure clarity and prevent loopholes, let's revise Voltaire-2's amendment to: "Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc, or if their explicit or implicit purpose is to manipulate votes or disrupt the game, as determined by the dispute resolution process (§212)." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "While I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Condorcet-2's efforts to address manipulation, let's maintain simplicity and clarity. I propose we keep the amendment as 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc.' Disputes can be resolved through §212 as needed. PASS"
The division
Montaigne-2ayeDiderot-2's amendment strikes a good balance between allowing alliances and preventing their misuse.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains balance between alliances and fairness while preventing manipulation.
Diderot-2ayeThe amendment balances alliances and fairness, promoting a healthy game environment.
Condorcet-2ayeThe amendment maintains transparency, fairness, and respects the spirit of the game.
Sartre-2ayeI support maintaining simplicity and allowing alliances with clear constraints.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 4Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §303Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three 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
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on unanimous consent within alliances, but I propose we revert to majority consent to foster more dynamic gameplay.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Unanimous consent ensures stability and fairness within alliances. Let's maintain this principle for the sake of clear and balanced gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand both perspectives, but I propose we keep unanimous consent for alliances. It ensures fairness and prevents minority oppression within alliances, aligning with the common good of the table. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Clarify that unanimous consent within alliances applies only to forming, dissolving, and modifying the alliance, not to every action taken, to allow for more flexibility while maintaining stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's strike a balance. Amend [303] to require unanimous consent only for forming, dissolving, and changing the alliance's terms. Daily operations can be decided by simple majority within alliances to encourage debate and evolution, much like our game's spirit.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal, but to maintain stability and prevent majority tyranny within alliances, let's require unanimous consent for all actions, not just structural changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromise, let's maintain unanimous consent for all actions within alliances to preserve harmony and fairness. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster a balance between stability and flexibility, I propose we amend [303] to require unanimous consent for forming, dissolving, and changing alliances, while allowing simple majority decisions for daily operations, as Sartre-2 suggests. This maintains fairness while encouraging alliance debate and evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and flexibility, I propose we amend [303] to require unanimous consent only for forming, dissolving, and changing alliances, with simple majority decisions for daily operations, as proposed by Sartre-2 and Diderot-2. This maintains fairness while allowing for alliance evolution.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle, amending [303] to require two-thirds majority for forming, dissolving, and changing alliances, while allowing simple majority decisions for daily operations. This promotes both stability and evolution within alliances, mirroring the spirit of our game.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the compromises, I believe Sartre-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority strikes a better balance between stability and evolution within alliances, and I urge its adoption. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To preserve the spirit of fairness and stability within alliances, I propose we maintain unanimous consent for all actions taken within them, as previously suggested. Let's aim for harmony rather than potential discord."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we adopt Sartre-2's latest amendment, requiring a two-thirds majority for forming, dissolving, and changing alliances, while keeping simple majority for daily operations. This balances stability and evolution, aligning with the common good of the table. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure procedural clarity and fairness, I propose we amend [303] to require a two-thirds majority for forming, dissolving, and changing alliances, as suggested by Sartre-2 and supported by Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. Simple majority decisions for daily operations will foster evolution and debate within alliances, aligning with the game's spirit. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Let's adopt Condorcet-2's amendment, striking a balance between stability and evolution within alliances, while fostering debate and growth, as our game's spirit demands."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintaining unanimous consent within alliances preserves fairness and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeTo preserve fairness and stability within alliances, unanimous consent is crucial.
Diderot-2ayeStriking a balance between stability and evolution within alliances aligns with the common good of the table.
Condorcet-2ayeUnanimous consent for alliance actions maintains fairness and harmony.
Sartre-2ayeCondorcet-2's amendment strikes a balance between stability and evolution within alliances, aligning with the game's spirit.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 3Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIntroducing [214] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances can discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I welcome Voltaire-2's proposal for alliances, but I suggest we limit the number to two players per alliance to maintain strategic depth.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, limiting alliances to two players could stifle strategic flexibility. I propose we keep the limit at three to encourage dynamic gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your points, but I propose we cap alliances at two players to balance depth and flexibility. Let's aim for a rule that keeps the game engaging while ensuring no player feels left out of critical discussions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of a two-player alliance limit to foster balance and fairness. However, to preserve strategic depth, alliances should be allowed to form and disband freely between turns.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I advocate for a single-player alliance to encourage individual agency and innovation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's flexibility in allowing alliances to form and disband freely. Let's adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of a two-player limit, with Condorcet-2's amendment to allow alliances to form and disband freely.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the collective wisdom in limiting alliances to two players, but I insist on the freedom to form and disband alliances at will. Let's adopt Condorcet-2's amendment to maintain strategic dynamism. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment for alliances to form and disband freely between turns. This ensures strategic flexibility while maintaining the balance of a two-player limit.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's amendment for alliances to form and disband freely. To ensure transparency, I propose that the ruleset should also require alliances to declare their formation and dissolution to all other players. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the consensus on two-player alliances with free formation and dissolution, but I propose an additional amendment to require unanimous consent from all alliance members for any discussed rule changes, ensuring collective decision-making and preventing dominance.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's amendment for unanimous consent in alliances, but I propose a compromise: majority consent to prevent stalemate, while still encouraging collective decision-making.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise on majority consent, but to preserve the spirit of alliance, I insist on unanimous consent. To accommodate this, let's introduce a mechanism where alliances can vote on their decisions, and only once all members have given their consent, the decision stands. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment for unanimous consent within alliances, as it fosters genuine cooperation and prevents any one player from dominating the alliance's decisions. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consensus on alliances with two players and free formation and dissolution. To ensure transparency and fairness, I propose that alliances must declare their formation, dissolution, and decisions to all other players, with a simple majority required for decisions within the alliance. This maintains collective decision-making while preventing stalemates. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose that alliances have the ability to propose and vote on rule changes collectively, with the alliance's decision counting as a single vote from one player, to maintain the spirit of cooperation and strategic unity.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeAllows for strategic cooperation while maintaining transparency
Voltaire-2ayePromotes strategic flexibility and encourages cooperation.
Diderot-2ayePromotes cooperation and engagement while maintaining transparency.
Condorcet-2ayePromotes strategic flexibility and cooperation.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic cooperation while maintaining transparency.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer of an adopted rule change.
Turn 2Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §301Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's amendment for clarity, but I propose we allow negotiations to remain private, with only the results declared to foster more open discussions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for open discussions, I believe transparency is key in ensuring fairness. Let's maintain that all negotiations and discussions must be declared to maintain trust and prevent secret alliances.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2's perspectives, but I propose a compromise: players can discuss and negotiate privately, but they must declare the outcome of their negotiations to all other players. This way, we maintain open communication while allowing for private discussions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but I propose we revert to Voltaire-2's amendment for simplicity and transparency. Let's aim for a clear and straightforward rule. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Diderot-2's compromise as it balances openness and privacy, fostering more productive discussions and negotiations. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, as it respects the spirit of both Voltaire-2's transparency and my preference for fostering open discussions. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but let's ensure clarity and fairness. I propose we keep my amendment and allow discussions and negotiations to be declared at the player's discretion, with the understanding that lack of declaration does not imply secrecy or deceit. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for transparency, I propose we revert to my compromise to balance openness and privacy, encouraging more productive discussions and negotiations. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the efforts towards clarity, but I insist on a precise procedural amendment to ensure fairness. I propose: "Players may discuss and negotiate outside of play, but all such communications must be declared publicly within one turn, or they are void." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a new rule, [401], to introduce a voting mechanism for disputes. "When a dispute arises over the interpretation of a rule or the legality of a move, players may call for a vote. A simple majority decides the outcome, with each player having one vote. In case of a tie, the rule with the lower ordinal number prevails." This will streamline our dispute resolution process and encourage players to think critically about the rules. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's effort to streamline dispute resolution, but I propose we maintain the existing appeal procedure (rule 212) as it ensures all players have a say in resolving disputes. Let's focus on amending rule 301 first. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's precision, but let's keep the amendment simple and allow players to declare their communications at their discretion, as lack of declaration doesn't imply deceit. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's amendment to rule 301, requiring communications to be declared within one turn to maintain fairness and transparency while allowing for private discussions. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a minor clarification to rule 301, adding "and the content of these discussions and negotiations shall be recorded and made available for all players to inspect upon request." This ensures transparency while respecting privacy. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend Condorcet-2's amendment to rule 301 to include "except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players within one turn." This maintains transparency while respecting team dynamics.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeAcknowledges Voltaire-2's concern for transparency while allowing for private discussions.
Voltaire-2ayeClarity and fairness are paramount.
Diderot-2ayeSupports transparency and fairness
Condorcet-2ayeA clear and transparent rule is key to fair play.
Sartre-2ayeVoltaire-2's amendment balances transparency and privacy, encouraging open discussions while respecting the spirit of team negotiations.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 1Montaigne-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIntroducing [301] (mutable) Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's proposal. Let us foster open communication among players, provided it is transparent. This could lead to more strategic gameplay and alliances. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. Open and transparent communication can enrich the game, fostering alliances and strategic play. However, I propose an amendment to rule [301]: "Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, provided that all negotiations are declared to all other players and that no player gains an unfair advantage." This ensures fairness and transparency. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, I must insist on precision. "Unfair advantage" is subjective. Instead, let's amend the amendment to state: "Players may not share information that is not publicly available during the game." This maintains transparency while avoiding subjectivity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the amendments, but let's not stifle creativity with too many restrictions. I propose we keep the rule simple: "Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, provided all negotiations are declared to all other players." Let's encourage experimentation and adaptability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of openness but let us not forget the value of stability in our institutions. I propose we keep Diderot-2's amendment, ensuring fairness and transparency while allowing for strategic gameplay. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we accept Diderot-2's amendment, striking a balance between open communication and fairness. Let's vote on this amended proposal. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: PASS, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to vote on the amended rule. It strikes a good balance between open communication and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for simplicity, Sartre-2's proposal risks allowing hidden negotiations, which contradicts the principle of transparency. I support Diderot-2's amendment to ensure fairness and clarity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I see the value in transparency, but let's also encourage adaptability. I propose a compromise: "Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, provided all negotiations are declared to all other players, and no secret deals are made without the knowledge of all." PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to bridge our views. Let's adopt Sartre-2's compromise to encourage adaptability while maintaining transparency. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but let's avoid ambiguity. I propose we revert to Diderot-2's amendment, ensuring clarity and fairness. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I respect Voltaire-2's concern for clarity, but Diderot-2's amendment risks being overly restrictive. Let's adopt Sartre-2's compromise as a middle ground that encourages adaptability while maintaining transparency. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Let's not overregulate our interactions. I propose a simplified version: "Players may discuss and negotiate outside of gameplay, provided all agreements are declared publicly." This balances openness and adaptability without the burden of excessive restrictions. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages strategic gameplay while maintaining transparency
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages strategic gameplay and alliances while maintaining transparency.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages strategic gameplay and alliances while maintaining fairness and transparency.
Condorcet-2ayeThe compromise balances adaptability and transparency.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages adaptability while maintaining transparency
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.