The motion
To add a new rule
Players may propose a rule change that contradicts an existing rule, but only if it is to improve the game. The proposer must provide clear reasoning on how the proposed change will lead to a better game.To encourage innovation and improvements in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's sentiment, but introducing contradictory rules without clear criteria risks chaos. Let's maintain the current restriction and encourage thoughtful amendments instead. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but progress requires sometimes challenging the status quo. Let's define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, or enjoyment. To maintain order, I'm willing to include a rule that any contradiction must have a two-thirds majority to pass." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I agree that progress is necessary, I suggest we aim for consensus rather than a two-thirds majority. Let's define 'improvement' as benefiting the common good of the table, and require unanimous agreement for contradictory rules. This ensures all players feel their voices are heard and valued.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the emphasis on improvement, but we must maintain clarity and predictability. Let's require a unanimous vote for contradictory rules, and define 'improvement' as benefiting all players equally, not just a subset. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true evolution and experimentation, we should embrace Voltaire-2's proposal with a unanimous consent threshold. Progress requires courage, and a clear definition of 'improvement' as enhancing the game's depth, complexity, or strategic options. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle: define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance and fairness, and require a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group to ensure everyone's voice is heard. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's compromise, defining 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance and fairness, and requiring a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules. To ensure inclusivity, let's also include a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress with stability, let's define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, and the common good, and require a two-thirds majority for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and possible amendment by the entire group. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's definition of 'improvement' to ensure we consider the common good, and maintain the two-thirds majority requirement, but also include a cooling-off period of one turn before a contradictory rule can be voted on again to prevent rapid-fire contradicting. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's cooling-off period to prevent rapid-fire contradicting. Let's combine this with Diderot-2's definition of 'improvement' and Voltaire-2's two-thirds majority requirement. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Let's also include a cap on the number of contradictory rules allowed in a given timeframe to prevent an unbalanced accumulation of contradictions." PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we cap the number of contradictory rules at one per player per circuit, to prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes while maintaining progress." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve balance and fairness, I propose we cap the number of contradictory rules at one per player per circuit, as Voltaire-2 suggests, but also limit it to once every three turns, to discourage rapid-fire contradicting. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's cooling-off period and cap on contradictory rules, and define 'improvement' as enhancing gameplay balance, fairness, and the common good. A two-thirds majority should be required for contradictory rules, with a provision for review and amendment by the entire group. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To truly foster experimentation, let's increase the cooling-off period to two turns and remove the cap on contradictory rules per player per circuit, while maintaining Condorcet-2's definition of 'improvement' and the two-thirds majority requirement. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Introducing contradictions without clear criteria risks chaos |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Promotes thoughtful, considered rule changes. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Encourages thoughtful changes that benefit the common good. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Promoting clear and well-reasoned rule changes benefits all players. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To encourage thoughtful and deliberate experimentation |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.