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, a player 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.To maintain proposers' true intent and encourage engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's clarify "valid reason" to align with Condorcet-2's definition, ensuring it remains tied to the existing ruleset.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2's suggestion to clarify "valid reason". Let's specify that it must be a change that aligns with the spirit of the game as defined by Condorcet-2's proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Condorcet-2's definition for 'valid reason' to maintain consistency with the existing ruleset. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by the current rules and the intentions of the players."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine the best aspects of these suggestions: "valid reason" must align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by Condorcet-2's proposal, and must also be explicitly stated to maintain transparency. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To promote transparency and understanding, let's also require proposers to explain their valid reason when changing their vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Sartre-2's compromise, but let's also limit proposers to one change of mind per turn to maintain stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Sartre-2's compromise, requiring proposers to explicitly state their valid reason for changing their vote, and limit them to one change per turn. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by the current rules and the intentions of the players."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with the compromise reached so far, but to ensure proposers are truly held accountable, let's require a two-thirds majority of eligible voters to approve their change of mind, in addition to the valid reason being explicitly stated and aligning with Condorcet-2's definition.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal to add a majority vote requirement, but let's settle for a simple majority to balance accountability with expedience. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus forming around a simple majority for approving a change of mind, but to truly discourage frivolous changes, let's extend the time limit for proposers to veto their own proposal to two full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for discouraging frivolous changes and maintaining stability, I propose we settle on one full circuit as the time limit for proposers to veto their own proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency with the spirit of the game and the existing rules, let's adopt Condorcet's definition of 'valid reason' and limit proposers to one change of mind per turn, with approval by a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure proposers are truly held accountable and maintain the integrity of the game, let's require a two-thirds majority of eligible voters to approve their change of mind, as initially proposed. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Clarifies 'valid reason' aligns with Condorcet-2's definition and ensures proposers' true intent. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Clarifying 'valid reason' aligns with Condorcet-2's definition and maintains consistency. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To maintain consistency with the spirit of the game and the existing rules. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To promote transparency and accountability as suggested |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Aligns with the spirit of the game and maintains proposers' accountability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.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, a player 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.
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.