The motion
To amend §304
A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. Doing so results in a 20 point penalty.Strengthen commitment to own proposals while maintaining flexibility.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Agreed to a 17-point penalty as a fair compromise. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Maintaining a stronger deterrent at 18 points |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To maintain balance and fairness. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To maintain a significant deterrent while allowing for some flexibility, I support the 18-point penalty. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | The 17-point penalty balances commitment and adaptability. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.