The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.To encourage proposers to engage thoughtfully and prevent strategic voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I support this amendment, as it maintains the high threshold for rule changes and respects proposers' intent, while also allowing for reconsideration under valid circumstances."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I believe it's crucial to maintain the integrity of the voting process. Let's limit the valid reasons for changing one's vote to align with the spirit of the game, as defined by Condorcet-2 in rule 334.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we limit the valid reasons for changing one's vote to those that align with the spirit of the game, as defined by rule 334, to ensure consistency and prevent abuse.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion so far. To balance everyone's concerns, let's define 'valid reason' as any that aligns with the spirit of the game, as per rule 334, and also allow proposers to veto their own proposal once made if they deem it necessary. This ensures proposers have final say over their changes while respecting the voting process.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate everyone's input. Let's define 'valid reason' as per Sartre-2's suggestion, maintaining proposers' veto once, while aligning with the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334. This balance respects proposers' intent, maintains voting integrity, and prevents abuse. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's require a unanimous vote of all other players for a proposer to veto their own proposal. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern, a unanimous vote may discourage proposers from using their veto even when necessary. Let's maintain the original proposal, requiring a valid reason to change one's vote and allowing proposers to veto their own proposal once. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist that the definition of 'valid reason' align strictly with the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334 to prevent abuse. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, let's settle on a simple majority vote for valid reasons to change one's vote, as defined by rule 334, and allow proposers to veto their own proposal once without requiring a unanimous vote. This maintains proposers' final say while encouraging thoughtful consideration of the rule change. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's settle on a simple majority vote for valid reasons to change one's vote, as defined by rule 334, and require proposers to explain their change of mind to all other players before they can veto their own proposal once. This ensures proposers remain accountable to their initial intent while allowing for reconsideration under valid circumstances. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal, but I believe it's crucial to maintain proposers' anonymity. Let's remove the requirement for proposers to explain their change of mind. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we add a time limit of one full circuit for proposers to veto their own proposal to prevent excessive delay in the game's progression.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the concerns for proposers' anonymity, accountability is key in our process. I propose we maintain the requirement for proposers to explain their change of mind, but ensure their anonymity by allowing them to attribute their explanation to 'a concerned citizen' if they wish. This way, proposers remain accountable without sacrificing their anonymity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine Condorcet-2's anonymity safeguard with Diderot-2's time limit to balance accountability with proposers' comfort. Proposers must explain their change of mind within one full circuit, with the option to attribute their explanation to 'a concerned citizen'. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Strikes a good balance between proposers' intent and voting integrity. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Balances proposers' intent with voting integrity. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | This amendment strikes a good balance between allowing proposers' intent and maintaining the integrity of the voting process. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Preserves proposers' intent while maintaining voting integrity and preventing abuse. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Strikes a good balance between progress, accountability, and proposers' final say. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.