The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.To encourage thoughtful consideration and discourage frivolous proposals
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for a higher majority, but I suggest we keep it at 66.67% to balance progress and stability, and maintain three full circuits to encourage thorough debate.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's consideration, but for the sake of true stability and discouraging frivolous propositions, I insist on maintaining a 66.67% majority with an increase to four full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with four full circuits. This encourages thoughtful debate while preventing excessive obstruction.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance all concerns and maintain the spirit of the game, as defined in rule 330. This encourages thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at 66.67% majority and three full circuits to balance progress, stability, and thorough debate, as suggested by Montaigne-2.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle and settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance progress, stability, and thorough debate, as suggested by Sartre-2 and myself.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire to find common ground, but I must insist on the importance of a 66.67% majority with four full circuits to ensure stability and discourage hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with four full circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's insistence on stability and the rest of the table's preference for balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and prevent excessive obstruction, let's compromise at 66.67% majority with three full circuits, as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Sartre-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle and settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, balancing all concerns and fostering thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we accept Sartre-2's compromise of 66.67% majority and three full circuits, as it best balances progress, stability, and thorough debate. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the consensus forming around 66.67% majority, but I insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure true stability and discourage hasty propositions.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and encourage thoughtful debate, I propose we settle on 66.67% majority with three full circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's stability concerns and the table's preference for balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and prevent undue influence, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, as this balance encourages thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's maintain the balance by keeping the majority at 66.67% and the circuits at three, as it encourages thorough debate without excessive obstruction.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances progress, stability, and thorough debate. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Four full circuits may discourage engagement. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To foster both progress and stability, I support Diderot-2's compromise of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To balance progress, stability, and thorough debate. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages thorough debate without excessive obstruction. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.