The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.To balance thorough debate and progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A two-thirds majority and three full circuits strike a good balance between stability and progress, but let's include Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game' to maintain clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for clarity, Condorcet-2's definition may be too restrictive. Let's allow for more organic evolution of the game's spirit.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a two-thirds majority and three full circuits, with 'spirit of the game' defined as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that our definition should prioritize alignment with the existing ruleset, as it ensures stability and prevents unexpected changes to the game's core mechanics.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we accept Diderot-2's compromise, maintaining balance between progress and stability while preserving the game's core intent.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consensus around a two-thirds majority and three full circuits. To foster both stability and evolution, let's define 'spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent, while allowing for reasonable adaptations.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage more thoughtful consideration, let's add a provision that proposers must explain any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and encourage thoughtful debate, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with three full circuits, defining 'spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent, and requiring proposers to explain any change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I suggest we accept Diderot-2's proposal, striking a balance between stability, progress, and preserving the game's core intent while promoting thoughtful consideration. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal, but to foster true evolution, let's allow proposers to explain any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule, even if it aligns with the existing ruleset's intent but adapts it in a novel way. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Diderot-2's proposal with Sartre-2's clarification, ensuring both stability and evolution. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To ensure proposers are truly held accountable, let's require a two-thirds majority vote among eligible voters to approve any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the concern for accountability, a two-thirds majority for every change to the 'spirit of the game' definition may hinder necessary adaptations. Let's keep the requirement for proposers to explain their changes, with a simple majority vote for approval. PASS.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | A two-thirds majority and three full circuits balance stability and evolution. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Two-thirds majority may hinder necessary adaptations. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Voltaire-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority may hinder necessary adaptations and discourage thoughtful debate. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Strikes a good balance between stability and progress |
| aye | Sartre-2 | A two-thirds majority and three full circuits strike a good balance between stability and progress. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.