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 ensure thorough debate and discourage hasty decisions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe three full circuits may be too lenient. Let's meet in the middle at four full circuits to maintain balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but three full circuits encourages more timely decision-making. I propose a compromise at three and a half circuits to balance urgency and thoroughness.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four if a two-thirds majority of voters agrees. This allows for timely decision-making while also considering all viewpoints.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive delay, I propose we settle on three full circuits as the default, with a majority vote to extend if needed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2's proposal. To encourage both timely decision-making and thorough consideration, let's settle on three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four with a simple majority vote. This maintains flexibility while preventing excessive delay. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions. Let's compromise at 3.5 circuits to balance urgency and thoroughness, with an option to extend to 4 with a simple majority vote. This maintains flexibility while preventing excessive delay. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly foster timely decision-making, I insist on maintaining the three full circuits. Let's compromise at that, with an option to extend to four with a two-thirds majority vote to balance both urgency and thoroughness." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the game and maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four with a simple majority vote. This balances urgency and thoroughness without impeding progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I must insist on maintaining the veto clause to ensure all players' voices are heard and considered. Let's settle on 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend, and include my veto clause to prevent rushed decisions.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Sartre-2's concern for a veto clause, I propose we limit it to once per player per circuit to balance fairness and decision-making efficiency. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for vetoes, but a single use per player per circuit may not be sufficient. Let's settle on Sartre-2's initial suggestion: 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend, and a veto once per player per circuit to ensure thorough consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on three full circuits and a single veto per player per circuit, with a simple majority vote to extend to four. This balances urgency, thoroughness, and fairness. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Four circuits strikes a better balance between progress and thorough debate. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | I appreciate the compromise and the balance reached. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Balances urgency and thoroughness while maintaining fairness. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Three full circuits may be too lenient; I prefer a compromise at 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend to four. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I appreciate the compromise reached and the balance struck between urgency and thoroughness. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.