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' intent and encourage engagement
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I propose we reduce the number of full circuits from four to three to expedite decision-making while still allowing for thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to streamline the process, but I believe three full circuits may not provide sufficient opportunity for thorough consideration.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance both efficiency and thoroughness, let's compromise at 3.5 circuits, allowing for extra consideration without excessive delay.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I suggest we stick with four full circuits to maintain thorough consideration, but I'm open to negotiation on the voting threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion on expediting decision-making, but I propose we maintain four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. However, I'm open to discussing a compromise on the voting threshold to balance both efficiency and thoroughness.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise proposal of 3.5 circuits, but to maintain a clear threshold, let's stick to a whole number. I suggest we settle at three full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concern for clarity, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. As a compromise, let's reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for thoroughness, but to encourage progress and prevent excessive caution, I propose we settle at three full circuits with a 66.67% majority vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve thorough consideration, I suggest we maintain four full circuits, but to accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose a 66.67% majority vote to expedite decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at 3.5 circuits with a 66.67% majority vote, balancing efficiency and thoroughness, and allowing for extra consideration when necessary.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To find a balanced compromise, let's meet in the middle at three full circuits and a 66.67% majority vote, acknowledging Condorcet-2's concern for thorough consideration and Diderot-2's emphasis on efficiency.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 3.5 circuits, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. As a compromise, let's reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's compromise of 3.5 circuits with a 66.67% majority vote."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we limit Sartre-2's veto to once per game.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for fairness, but to maintain proposers' intent and allow for reconsideration, let's limit the veto to once per proposal, not per game.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To expedite decision-making without sacrificing thorough consideration. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To expedite decision-making while still allowing for thorough consideration. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To maintain thorough consideration, I insist on maintaining four full circuits. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Must maintain four full circuits for thorough consideration. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances efficiency and thoroughness. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.