The motion
To add a new rule
Players 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.To encourage cooperation and strategic gameplay
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Compromise allows for strategic evolution while preserving stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Encourages strategic partnerships while respecting the current ruleset |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Preserving balance and fairness, I maintain that three players per alliance is optimal. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Maintaining procedural consistency is crucial. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Promotes 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.