The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334.To maintain proposers' intent and encourage thoughtful debate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but reducing the number of circuits from four to three may lead to hastier decisions. I propose we meet in the middle at 3.5 circuits to balance urgency with thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for thorough consideration, I insist on three full circuits to maintain the spirit of the game and encourage thoughtful debate.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on thoughtful debate, reducing the number of circuits to three may hinder the common good by not allowing enough time for thorough discussion. I propose we maintain four full circuits to ensure all voices are heard.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we clarify the definition of 'spirit of the game' as per rule 334, to ensure consistency in our voting behavior.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but I propose we limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain balance and prevent exploitation of the veto clause.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances and compromises. To strike a balance, I propose we settle on 3.5 circuits and limit the veto to once per proposal, as per Sartre-2.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that three full circuits are crucial for maintaining the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334. I propose we accept this change and keep the veto clause unlimited for now.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on three full circuits as the default, with the option to extend to four if consensus is not reached within the first three.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of three full circuits as the default, with the option to extend to four upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal as per Sartre-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion, with three full circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal. This strikes a good balance between progress, thorough consideration, and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the collective effort to balance progress with thorough consideration. To accommodate all viewpoints, I suggest we settle on 3.5 circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, with the veto limited to once per proposal. This compromise maintains the spirit of the game while allowing for flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find a compromise, but I must insist on maintaining three full circuits to preserve the stability and thoroughness of the game. I propose we accept this change and keep the veto clause unlimited to ensure proposers are truly held accountable.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for stability and thoroughness, I propose we settle on four full circuits as the default, with the option to reduce to three upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of four full circuits as the default, with the option to reduce to three upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain fairness and prevent abuse.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and balance, I propose we settle on 3.5 circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, with the veto limited to once per proposal. This accommodates everyone's concerns while maintaining progress and fairness.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | 3.5 circuits balances urgency with thorough consideration. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To maintain stability and thoroughness, three full circuits are crucial. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Four full circuits are necessary to ensure all voices are heard. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four full circuits are necessary to maintain thorough consideration. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To strike a balance between progress and thoughtful debate, as per Sartre-2's suggestion. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.