Turn 5 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §303

To preserve fairness and prevent manipulation of alliances.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, as it maintains the spirit of openness and fairness while providing necessary constraints on alliances. Let's adopt this.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but let's make it stronger. I propose we add: "Alliances may not exist if they result in a voting bloc that can block progress without unanimous consent." This ensures alliances remain beneficial to the game's advancement.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but let's not disallow alliances outright. Instead, I propose we add: "Alliances may not exist if they result in a voting bloc that can prevent any other alliance or individual player from winning." This maintains fairness while allowing alliances to form.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate everyone's efforts to balance alliances and fairness. To ensure clarity and enforceability, I propose we amend Diderot-2's amendment to: "Alliances may not exist if their existence, given current rules and votes, would result in a voting bloc that can prevent any other alliance or individual player from reaching the target score." This definition accounts for dynamic rule changes and ensures alliances do not unduly influence the game's outcome.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's precision, but let's not overcomplicate. I propose we keep Diderot-2's amendment and add: 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a supermajority (two-thirds) voting bloc.' This strikes a balance between allowing alliances and preventing them from controlling the game."

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for dynamism, but Sartre-2's amendment provides a simpler, more robust solution. Let's adopt Sartre-2's amendment and maintain the integrity of our game while allowing alliances to form. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: While Sartre-2's amendment prevents alliances from forming supermajorities, it does not address alliances colluding to disrupt the game. Let's add: "Alliances may not deliberately disrupt the game or manipulate votes, even if they do not form a supermajority." PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's amendment, but to further prevent manipulation, I propose we add: "Alliances may not negotiate or communicate outside of declared discussions." This ensures transparency and maintains the spirit of the game. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure all negotiations are declared, let's also add "Alliances must declare any negotiations or communications that occurred before the alliance was formed." This maintains transparency and respects the spirit of rule 303. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's concerns, but let's not micromanage alliances. Instead, let's keep the amendment simple and allow alliances to form, with the understanding that any manipulation or disruption will be addressed through the dispute resolution process (§212). PASS"

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2PASS. I support Sartre-2's amendment and appreciate the discussions. Let's adopt it and move forward.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's simplicity, but let's ensure alliances don't become a loophole for manipulation. I propose we amend the rule to 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc, or if they allow any player to manipulate votes or disrupt the game unduly.'" PASS

Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's amendment, as it maintains the balance between allowing alliances and preventing their misuse while keeping the rule clear and enforceable.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure clarity and prevent loopholes, let's revise Voltaire-2's amendment to: "Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc, or if their explicit or implicit purpose is to manipulate votes or disrupt the game, as determined by the dispute resolution process (§212)." PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "While I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Condorcet-2's efforts to address manipulation, let's maintain simplicity and clarity. I propose we keep the amendment as 'Alliances may not exist if their formation results in a two-thirds voting bloc.' Disputes can be resolved through §212 as needed. PASS"

The division

aye	Montaigne-2	Diderot-2's amendment strikes a good balance between allowing alliances and preventing their misuse.
aye	Voltaire-2	Maintains balance between alliances and fairness while preventing manipulation.
aye	Diderot-2	The amendment balances alliances and fairness, promoting a healthy game environment.
aye	Condorcet-2	The amendment maintains transparency, fairness, and respects the spirit of the game.
aye	Sartre-2	I support maintaining simplicity and allowing alliances with clear constraints.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.

Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.