The motion
To amend §304
A 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.To ensure players stand by their proposals and prevent strategic voting.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances commitment and strategic voting. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Maintains balance and encourages commitment. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Maintains balance between commitment and flexibility. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Strikes the right balance between commitment and deterrence |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balance 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