The motion
To amend §304
A player may not vote against their own proposal once made. If a player votes against their own proposal, they lose 18 points.To maintain the spirit of commitment to one's proposals.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Maintaining a strong deterrent while allowing strategic planning before submission |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Maintains strong deterrent while allowing strategic planning before submission |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To encourage strategic adaptability, I propose a 17-point penalty with one amendment option before voting. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Prefer a balance between commitment and adaptability. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Striking a balance between commitment and adaptability |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.