The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.To encourage more thoughtful consideration of rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "While I appreciate Voltaire-2's focus on stability, I believe a 66.67% majority strikes the best balance between progress and thorough debate. I propose we adopt this, along with Sartre-2's provision for three full circuits."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but to truly foster stability, we must insist on a two-thirds majority. I propose we maintain Sartre-2's provision for three full circuits to ensure all voices are heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, let's compromise at a 66.67% majority and three full circuits, balancing progress and thorough debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority and maintain Sartre-2's veto clause as previously established, to ensure both stability and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on stability, but a two-thirds majority may hinder progress. Let's meet in the middle at 66.67% and maintain three full circuits for thorough debate.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the concerns raised, but to foster both progress and thorough debate, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, incorporating Sartre-2's veto clause as previously established.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find common ground, I remain convinced that a two-thirds majority is crucial for true stability. To reach a compromise, I propose we settle on 66.67% majority, but extend the circuit limit to four to ensure all voices are heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle at 66.67% majority with three full circuits, a compromise that respects all viewpoints while encouraging thoughtful debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure consistency and prevent further debate on this issue, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. This compromise respects all viewpoints and aligns with the principle of simple majority voting. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the compromise reached, I believe the spirit of the game encourages adaptability. Let's make the majority requirement flexible, adapting to the number of players in the game. For example, in a game with fewer than 10 players, we could use a simple majority, while for 10 or more, we could use a two-thirds majority. This way, we cater to both progress and stability, depending on the scale of the game.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's innovative thinking, I believe it may cause unnecessary complexity. To maintain durability and simplicity, I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at 66.67% majority, but to truly discourage frivolous rule changes, let's extend the circuit limit to four full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for discouraging frivolous changes, extending the circuit limit to four may hinder progress. Let's compromise at three full circuits to balance both progress and stability. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Extending the circuit limit may hinder progress |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | I maintain that a two-thirds majority is crucial for true stability, and four full circuits are necessary to ensure all voices are heard. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To maintain stability and encourage thoughtful debate. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on three full circuits to ensure thorough debate. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Flexibility is key to evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.