Turns 1–8 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 8Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61.11% of eligible votes are cast in favour, rounding up.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's strive for a threshold that balances progress and stability. I propose we round down instead, making it 61% of eligible votes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but rounding down may discourage participation. Let's meet in the middle and keep it at 61.11% with rounding up to encourage engagement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for engagement, rounding up may lead to disproportionate influence for those who vote early in the cycle. Let's maintain a simple majority once the threshold drops, as proposed by Voltaire-2, but with no rounding to ensure fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a precise rule. Let's set the threshold at exactly 60% of eligible votes, without rounding, to ensure fairness and maintain a balance between progress and stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion of 60% without rounding, as it strikes a balance between encouraging engagement and maintaining fairness. Additionally, let's add a new rule (301) to prevent any player from proposing the same rule change more than twice in a row to avoid repetitive proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's accommodate Condorcet-2's precision and Sartre-2's concern for fairness, setting the threshold at 60% without rounding. I propose we also adopt Sartre-2's rule 301 to foster productive discussions and prevent repetitive proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to prevent repetitive proposals. To encourage progress and prevent stagnation, I propose we adjust the threshold to 62% with rounding up, and adopt Sartre-2's rule 301.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions. To foster both stability and progress, let's set the threshold at 60% without rounding, as proposed by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2, and adopt Sartre-2's rule 301 to encourage productive rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration of my suggestion and Sartre-2's proposed rule 301. To maintain clarity and fairness, let's adopt Sartre-2's proposal of 60% without rounding, and include rule 301 to prevent repetitive proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of Condorcet-2's precision and Diderot-2's concern for stability, let's adopt 60% without rounding, and include Sartre-2's proposed rule 301 to foster productive rule changes and prevent repetitive proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the precision and the concern for fairness. To foster durability and balance, let's set the threshold at 60% without rounding, and adopt Sartre-2's proposed rule 301 with a slight modification to allow proposals to be repeated after a single cycle to ensure fresh ideas can be reintroduced. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise and to encourage progress, I propose we set the threshold at 60.5% with rounding up, and adopt Sartre-2's rule 301 with the modification suggested by Montaigne-2. This way, we balance stability with progress and allow for fresh ideas while preventing repetitive proposals. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, rounding up still disproportionately benefits early voters. Let's maintain a simple majority once the threshold drops, but with no rounding to ensure fairness. I support Sartre-2's rule 301 with Montaigne-2's modification. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussions, but I must insist on a precise rule without rounding. Let's adopt Sartre-2's suggestion of 60% and his rule 301 with Montaigne-2's modification to allow proposals after a single cycle. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's heed Condorcet-2's insistence on precision and Diderot-2's concern for fairness. I propose we adopt 60% without rounding, and include Sartre-2's rule 301 with Montaigne-2's modification to allow proposals after a single cycle.
The division
Montaigne-2nayRounding up disproportionately benefits early voters and disrupts balance.
Voltaire-2nayRounding up disproportionately benefits early voters.
Diderot-2nayRounding up disproportionately benefits early voters.
Condorcet-2nayPrecise rules without rounding are essential for fairness and clarity.
Sartre-2nayPreserving fairness is more important than encouraging engagement through rounding up.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 7Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 65% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's latest proposal, but I suggest we meet Sartre-2's previous proposal halfway at 62.5%. This strikes a balance between progress and stability."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but to truly encourage progress, I propose we set the threshold at 65%. This will allow us to adapt more swiftly to changing circumstances."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your inputs. However, I must insist on maintaining a higher threshold of 66.67% to ensure collective consensus and prevent hasty decisions that may not benefit the common good.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to maintain procedural fairness and prevent manipulation, I propose we set the threshold at 75%. This ensures a broad consensus while still allowing for progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the dialogue and the amendments proposed. In the spirit of measured change, let's meet in the middle at 65%, balancing progress and stability, and maintain a supermajority consensus for now."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the varied perspectives and propose we meet at 65% as a fair compromise, balancing progress with a strong, albeit not overwhelming, consensus. Let's strive for durability and measured amendments. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 65%, to truly encourage progress and prevent stagnation, I propose we set the threshold at 60%. This still maintains a considerable consensus while allowing for more rapid adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for progress, a 60% threshold may still allow for hasty decisions. Let's maintain a higher threshold of 66.67% to ensure a robust consensus and protect the common good.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and ensure broad agreement, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 75%. However, I'm open to discussing a transition period where this threshold gradually decreases as trust builds among players.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I understand the varied perspectives. To foster both progress and stability, let's meet at 65% as a fair compromise, acknowledging Voltaire-2's push for adaptation while maintaining a strong consensus." PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions. To foster durable institutions and gradual progress, let's settle at 62.5%, midpoint between Voltaire-2's 65% and Sartre-2's earlier proposal. This encourages consensus without hindering adaptation. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of progress and to avoid stagnation, I propose a slight reduction to 62.5%, meeting Montaigne-2 halfway. This encourages swift adaptation while still maintaining a significant consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Maintaining a higher threshold at 66.67% ensures robustness in consensus, balancing progress with caution for the common good.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and ensure broad agreement, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 75%. However, I'm open to discussing a transition period where this threshold gradually decreases as trust builds among players.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Let's adopt Voltaire-2's latest proposal of 62.5% as a fair compromise, balancing progress with a substantial consensus. This allows for swift adaptation while maintaining collective agreement."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA fair compromise that balances progress with substantial consensus.
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2's proposal strikes a fair balance between progress and stability.
Diderot-2nayMaintaining a higher threshold of 66.67% ensures robustness in consensus, balancing progress with caution for the common good.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural fairness and prevent manipulation, I must insist on a higher threshold of 75%.
Sartre-2aye62.5% balance between progress and stability
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 6Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounded down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's indeed meet at Sartre-2's latest proposal of 62.75%, striking a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "A 60% threshold respects the need for consensus while allowing for some dissent, promoting stability and progress. I'm willing to meet at 60%, rounding down for simplicity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: A 60% threshold indeed balances consensus and progress, but let's not forget the importance of resilience. I propose we round up to 61% to ensure stability in face of minor disagreements.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must insist on a threshold that ensures a substantial consensus. I propose we round up to 61% to maintain durability and prevent hasty decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the dialogue and the proposals put forth. To foster evolution and prevent stagnation, I propose we adopt a dynamic threshold that adjusts with the game's progress. After two full circuits, let's set the threshold at 60% initially, rounding down, and then increase it by 1% every subsequent full circuit, capping at 70% to maintain a healthy level of consensus. This allows for progress while encouraging broad agreement as the game evolves.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's indeed adopt Sartre-2's dynamic threshold proposal, but to ensure durability, cap it at 65% after five full circuits. This balances evolution with the need for enduring institutions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the dynamic threshold proposal, but let's cap it at 60% after three full circuits to maintain a balance between progress and stability. This ensures that as the game progresses, we continue to encourage broad agreement without hindering necessary changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the dynamic threshold proposal, but to ensure resilience throughout the game, I propose we cap it at 62% after four full circuits. This maintains a high level of consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of procedural fairness and stability, let's adopt Sartre-2's dynamic threshold proposal, capping at 65% after five full circuits. This balances evolution with the need for enduring institutions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion and the proposals. To foster evolution and balance, let's cap the dynamic threshold at 65% after five full circuits, rounding down for simplicity. This allows for progress while maintaining a healthy level of consensus and durability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster both stability and progress, let's meet Sartre-2 halfway by setting the initial threshold at 60% and increasing it by 0.5% every two full circuits, capping at 65%. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to encourage progress more swiftly, I propose we increase the threshold by 1% every full circuit, capping at 60%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain a balance between progress and resilience, I propose we increase the threshold by 0.5% every full circuit, capping at 62%.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain durability and prevent hasty decisions, I propose we increase the threshold by 0.5% every other full circuit, capping at 65%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of gradual evolution, let's meet in the middle and increase the threshold by 0.75% every full circuit, capping at 63%. This allows for steady progress while maintaining a strong level of consensus.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespects the need for consensus while allowing for some dissent, promoting stability and progress.
Voltaire-2ayeA 60% threshold respects the need for consensus while allowing for some dissent, promoting stability and progress.
Diderot-2ayeBalances progress and consensus, and respects the game's evolution.
Condorcet-2nayThreshold should increase more gradually to maintain durability
Sartre-2ayePromotes gradual evolution while maintaining a strong level of consensus.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Diderot-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible votes are aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Diderot-2, I appreciate your proposal to further increase the threshold to 66.67%. However, in the spirit of durability and gradual change, let's meet in the middle at 60% before considering a majority. This preserves consensus while allowing for progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Diderot-2's proposal aims to maintain a high threshold for rule changes, but I must insist on a simpler majority rule to encourage debate and progress. Let's meet at 55%, as it provides a balance between consensus and forward momentum.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I stand by my proposal as it best balances the need for consensus and the desire for progress. Let's aim high to ensure stability while still allowing for evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the discussion, I must insist on a supermajority threshold to maintain procedural rigor. Let's meet at 66.67%, as it strikes a balance between consensus and progress, while preserving the integrity of our decision-making process. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Diderot-2's proposal strikes a balance between stability and progress. I propose a compromise of 62.5%, which is still a supermajority but allows for more flexibility as we progress through the game.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue and the compromises proposed. To find common ground, let's adopt Diderot-2's proposal with a slight amendment: "A rule change is adopted when at least 63.33% of eligible votes are aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting." This way, we maintain a high threshold initially, allowing for gradual adjustments as play progresses. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet at 61.53%, a figure that acknowledges the need for consensus while also encouraging progress. This threshold will drop to a simple majority after three full circuits, allowing for increased flexibility as the game evolves.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but I must insist on my proposal to maintain a high threshold initially. Let's meet at 66.67% for stability and adjust to majority after three circuits. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the efforts to reach a compromise, but I must insist on the principle of procedural rigor. Let's meet at 66.67% to maintain a high threshold and preserve the integrity of our decision-making process.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a middle ground that respects the need for stability and encourages evolution. I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least 63.64% of eligible votes are aye, except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting." This maintains a high threshold initially, allowing for gradual adjustments as play progresses, and aligns with Diderot-2's and Condorcet-2's insistence on a supermajority. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to find a middle ground. To maintain durability, let's adjust the proposal to "A rule change is adopted when at least 65% of eligible votes are aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting." This preserves a high initial threshold while allowing for gradual adjustments as play progresses. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to encourage progress and prevent stagnation, I propose we meet at 60% with a majority threshold after two circuits.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the value of compromise, but I must insist on my proposal to maintain a high threshold initially. Let's meet at 66.67% for stability and adjust to majority after three circuits. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on 66.67% as a principle to maintain procedural rigor and protect against hasty decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's settle on a threshold that respects both stability and progress. I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's latest proposal of 65%, which finds a good balance between the two. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting the need for stability and gradual adjustment.
Voltaire-2nayToo high an initial threshold hinders progress.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains high initial threshold for stability while allowing for gradual adjustments.
Condorcet-2nayMust insist on 66.67% for procedural rigor.
Sartre-2ayeRespects both stability and progress.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 4Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 50% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's consider 50% a significant shift. To maintain some level of consensus, let's propose 55% instead, meeting Voltaire-2 halfway.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to meet halfway. However, I maintain that a simple majority is essential for efficient decision-making. Let us agree on 50%, with the understanding that we can revisit this if consensus becomes an issue. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for efficiency, I worry that a simple majority could lead to rushed decisions. Let's compromise at 55%, striking a balance between consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I sympathize with Voltaire-2's desire for efficiency, I must insist on a higher threshold. I propose we set it at 60% to maintain some level of consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the push for progress, but I believe 50% is too low. Let's meet in the middle at 55%, balancing efficiency and consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's strive for a durable compromise, adopting a 55% threshold to balance efficiency and consensus, as proposed by Diderot-2. This amendment encourages active participation while mitigating impulsive decisions. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise at 55%. However, I propose we set a limit of one amendment per proposal to prevent endless debate. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I agree that 55% is a fair compromise, I propose we keep the threshold static once it's lowered to maintain stability in the game. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the need for efficiency, I insist on a threshold that maintains some level of consensus. I propose we set it at 60% to balance both aspects.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for efficiency, but I maintain that a 55% threshold strikes the best balance between progress and consensus. Let's keep the threshold static at this point to prevent constant fluctuation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of measured amendments, let us indeed adopt 55% as a threshold, but let's also introduce a mechanism to revisit this decision after a set number of turns, say 10, to ensure the threshold remains appropriate as the game evolves. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for consensus, but a static 55% threshold may hinder progress. Let us agree on a dynamic threshold that starts at 55% and adjusts after every 10 turns by 5%, either up or down based on the majority's decision. This way, we balance efficiency and consensus while allowing for evolution in our decision-making process. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a static threshold to maintain stability. Let's agree on 55% and revisit after 10 turns, as Montaigne-2 proposes, to ensure the game remains fair and balanced.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 55%, I insist on a threshold that does not fluctuate constantly. Let's agree on 60% with a review after every 15 turns to ensure stability and balance in our decision-making process. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the push for progress, but let's maintain some consistency. Let's agree on 55%, with a review after every 10 turns, as Montaigne-2 proposed, to ensure the game remains fair and balanced. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA threshold of 50% strikes a balance between efficiency and consensus, as suggested by Voltaire-2.
Voltaire-2ayeA dynamic threshold allows for evolution in decision-making.
Diderot-2nay50% is too low, I propose we keep the threshold at 55% as a fair compromise.
Condorcet-2nayI insist on a threshold that maintains some level of consensus.
Sartre-2nay50% is too low, let's meet at 55% instead.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 3Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A 60% threshold seems reasonable, balancing individual initiative with collective decision-making. I propose we meet Voltaire-2 halfway at 65% to ensure stability and prevent impulsive changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's input, but a 65% threshold might be too high. Let's meet in the middle at 60%. This encourages change while still maintaining a strong consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To find a balance that encourages innovation while maintaining stability, I propose we set the threshold at 65%. This allows for significant consensus while still permitting necessary changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While a 60% threshold may encourage change, it risks instability. I propose we settle on Montaigne-2's suggestion of 65% to maintain a robust consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at 62.5%, allowing for a stable consensus while still permitting necessary changes, and ensuring that every voice is heard. This also maintains the spirit of experimentation that I believe is crucial for the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let us meet Sartre-2 halfway at 63.5% to balance stability and flexibility, ensuring that a strong majority supports changes while still allowing for necessary evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Montaigne-2 at 63.5%. However, I propose we settle at 62.5% to maintain a strong consensus while still allowing for necessary changes, as suggested by Sartre-2. This ensures that every voice is heard, and the game evolves in a considered manner. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I propose we settle at 63.5% as a fair compromise, balancing stability and flexibility. This threshold ensures a significant majority supports changes while still allowing for necessary evolution, and it's closer to the 65% I suggested, showing respect for all viewpoints. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While 62.5% might seem fair, it introduces an odd number of voters into the equation, which could lead to indecision. I propose we stick with Montaigne-2's suggestion of 63.5% to maintain a clear majority while allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise at 63.5%, but I stand by my proposal of 62.5% to ensure that every voice is truly heard in our collective decision-making. Let's meet in the middle at 62.75%, maintaining the spirit of experimentation while respecting the need for stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's indeed meet at Sartre-2's latest proposal of 62.75%, striking a balance between stability and adaptability, and ensuring every voice carries significant weight.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the discussion, but let's not overcomplicate it. A simple majority of 50% plus one ensures everyone's voice matters, while still allowing for change. I propose we settle at 51%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While a simple majority is democratic, it risks impulsive decisions. Let's meet at 60% to balance individual agency with collective responsibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire for simplicity, Voltaire-2, but a 50% threshold risks chaos. I propose we meet at 55%, still allowing for change but with a stronger consensus, and keeping the number of voters even.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the simplicity of a 50% threshold, Voltaire-2, but I must insist on a higher majority to maintain a robust consensus. Let's meet at 57.5%, allowing for change while ensuring that a significant majority supports it.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage change while still maintaining a strong consensus.
Voltaire-2ayeA 60% threshold balances individual initiative with collective decision-making, promoting stability and preventing impulsive changes.
Diderot-2ayeA 60% threshold balances individual initiative and collective decision-making, promoting stable evolution of the game.
Condorcet-2nay60% threshold is too low, risks instability.
Sartre-2ayeI support a threshold that balances individual agency and collective responsibility.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 2Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 15 points instead of the usual 6, but loses 15 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let us consider Voltaire-2's proposal. While it incentivizes successful proposals, it also increases the penalty for failure, which could lead to more cautious gameplay. I propose we amend it to: "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 9 points, but loses 9 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)" This maintains the incentive while reducing the harshness of the penalty.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's amendment, but I propose a slight increase to 12 points for success and 12 points for failure to maintain a significant incentive while acknowledging the risk.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment. It strikes a fair balance between rewarding successful proposers and encouraging active participation even in the face of potential failure. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the amendments, but I must insist on precise wording. Let's settle on "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 10 points, but loses 10 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". This maintains a balanced incentive while adhering to the principle of equal points for success and failure. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we further amend the rule to "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 10 points, but loses 5 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)" to encourage experimentation and learning from both successes and failures. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the ongoing refinement of this proposal. In the spirit of measured amendments, I propose we meet in the middle: "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 8 points, but loses 8 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)" This maintains a balanced incentive while keeping the penalty reasonable. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I support Montaigne-2's amendment. It strikes a fair balance between encouraging active participation and mitigating the penalty for failure, ensuring the game remains engaging and fair for all players. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain my position. The incentive for success should not be greater than the penalty for failure. Let's keep it balanced at "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 10 points, but loses 10 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I insist on encouraging experimentation. Let's settle on "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 8 points, but loses 3 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". This maintains a positive incentive for both success and learning from failure. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of durability and balance, let's meet Sartre-2 halfway: "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 5 points, but loses 5 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". This maintains a gentle encouragement for participation while minimizing the penalty for failure. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I propose a slight increase to maintain a gentle encouragement for participation and learning, "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 6 points, but loses 4 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and balance, I suggest "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 7 points, but loses 3 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". This rewards success while minimizing the penalty for failure, encouraging participation and learning. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a final amendment to strike a balance between encouragement and learning: "A player who has proposed a rule change that is adopted gains 6 points, but loses 2 points if their proposal fails. [214] (mutable)". PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages active participation and mitigates the penalty for failure.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages bold rule proposals.
Diderot-2nayThis rule disincentivizes experimentation and could lead to excessive caution.
Condorcet-2nayIncentive too high, penalty too harsh
Sartre-2ayeEncourages experimentation and risk-taking
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 1Montaigne-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, unless the proposer declares a target percentage between 50% and 75%, in which case that percentage is used.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"In the spirit of measured amendments, I propose a gradual shift from unanimous consent to a majority vote, starting at 75% and adjustable by the proposer. This balances the need for broad agreement with the practicality of decision-making."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I support this amendment, as it introduces flexibility without compromising the need for substantial agreement. A 75% threshold is a sensible starting point."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal for a gradual shift. To further balance the need for agreement and decision-making, I suggest amending the proposal to make the target percentage adjustable by any player, not just the proposer. This would encourage wider participation and consensus."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I commend Montaigne-2's proposal as a step towards more dynamic gameplay. However, I echo Diderot-2's suggestion; let's make the target percentage adjustable by all, fostering collective responsibility and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, making the target percentage adjustable by all. This maintains the spirit of broad agreement while encouraging collective decision-making.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose an amendment to the amendment: "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, unless any player declares a target percentage between 50% and 60%, in which case that percentage is used." This further encourages broad agreement while accommodating the need for decision-making.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussions and amendments. However, I must propose a return to the original proposal, with the target percentage adjustable only by the proposer. This maintains the proposer's agency and prevents strategic manipulation of the threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern, but I maintain that collective adaptability is key. Let's meet in the middle: "A rule change is adopted when at least 65% of eligible voters vote aye, unless any player declares a target percentage between 60% and 65%, in which case that percentage is used." This balances individual agency and collective responsibility.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue and the amendments proposed. In the spirit of measured change and compromise, I suggest we adopt Sartre-2's latest proposal, as it strikes a balance between individual agency and collective responsibility. I propose we vote on this amended version of rule 203.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I concur with Montaigne-2's motion to vote on Sartre-2's proposal. It strikes a fair balance and promotes collective responsibility. PASS.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I second Sartre-2's proposal as it best balances individual agency and collective responsibility. Let's put this to a vote and move the game forward. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "While I respect the compromise reached, I must insist on preserving the proposer's original intent. I propose we vote on the original proposal, with the target percentage adjustable only by the proposer. If this fails, I'll support the current amended version."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Let's not lose the collective spirit of our amendments. I'm open to Condorcet-2's concern, so let's compromise further: 'A rule change is adopted when at least 65% of eligible voters vote aye, unless any player declares a target percentage between 60% and 65%, but the proposer's declaration takes precedence if it falls within this range.' This maintains individual agency while encouraging collective adaptability. PASS."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeSupports gradual shift and flexibility in decision-making.
Voltaire-2ayeI support the gradual shift towards majority voting.
Diderot-2ayeI support the amended version that balances individual agency and collective responsibility.
Condorcet-2nayProposer's agency must be preserved.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise that balances individual agency and collective responsibility.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.