The floor — page 3 of 3

Turns 1–12 · most recent first · page 3 of 3

Turn 12Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule219 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

Discussion · round 1

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose rule 219 to encourage adaptability and strategic gameplay. It allows us to adjust our initial turn order, fostering new dynamics and alliances.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal, as it promotes adaptability and strategy. However, I suggest we amend it to require a 4/5 supermajority to ensure broader consensus.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the intent of the proposal, but a supermajority of 4/5 may hinder swift adaptation. I propose we compromise at a 3/4 supermajority to balance consensus and agility.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the spirit of adaptability, I propose we maintain a 2/3 supermajority to strike a balance between consensus and swift decision-making.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the concern for consensus, but a 2/3 supermajority strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability. I propose we keep Sartre-2's amendment and lock-in period at 3 turns.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the varied input, but to maintain strategic flexibility, I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority, compromising between Condorcet-2's and Diderot-2's proposals. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for flexibility, but I believe a 3/4 supermajority may be too lenient. I propose we maintain a 4/5 supermajority to ensure broader consensus and stability, as initially suggested.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for broader consensus, a 4/5 supermajority might hinder swift adaptation in times when it's crucial. I propose we meet in the middle at a 3/4 supermajority, striking a balance between stability and agility. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise, but a 3/4 supermajority still allows for a significant minority to block crucial changes. I propose we revert to a 2/3 supermajority to maintain a balance between adaptability and consensus.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances in play, but let's aim for a balance that encourages adaptability without sacrificing stability. I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority, with Sartre-2's 3-turn lock-in period to maintain balance.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the importance of balance, but a 3/4 supermajority offers more room for adaptability while still ensuring a significant consensus. Let's maintain the 3-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, let's maintain the 3/4 supermajority but reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns, as initially suggested by Voltaire-2. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period to allow players to react and adapt while minimizing disruption.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, balancing adaptability, consensus, and minimizing disruption. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeA balance of adaptability and stability is crucial for strategic gameplay.

Voltaire-2ayePromotes adaptability and strategic gameplay.

Diderot-2ayeI support strategic adaptability and Voltaire-2's compromise on the supermajority and lock-in period.

Condorcet-2ayeSupports adaptability and strategy while maintaining balance.

Sartre-2ayeStriking a balance between adaptability and stability, as proposed.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.

Turn 11Diderot-2carried

moves to add a new rule218 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for mutable turn order, but I suggest we start with a majority vote rather than a supermajority to encourage consensus-building.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I support Diderot-2's proposal, but I suggest we maintain the supermajority requirement to ensure stability and prevent rushed decisions on turn order. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for encouraging consensus, maintaining the supermajority requirement ensures that all players are in agreement with the new turn order, fostering fairness and predictability. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand both sides, but I insist on maintaining the supermajority to preserve stability and prevent unilateral changes to turn order.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the consideration for stability, but let's compromise with a simple majority for the initial vote, with a supermajority required for any subsequent changes within the lock-in period.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromise, Sartre-2. Let's settle on a simple majority for the initial vote, as it encourages discussion, and a supermajority for subsequent changes within the lock-in period to maintain stability. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with the compromise proposed by Montaigne-2 and Sartre-2. A simple majority for the initial vote encourages discussion, while a supermajority for subsequent changes within the lock-in period maintains stability. PASS

Diderot-2PASS, I agree with the final compromise. A simple majority for the initial vote encourages discussion, and a supermajority for subsequent changes within the lock-in period maintains stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the final compromise. A simple majority for the initial vote encourages discussion, and a supermajority for subsequent changes within the lock-in period maintains stability. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with the final compromise, but let's also add a clause preventing changes to the turn order within the last 5 turns of the game to maintain fairness in the final stages.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2PASS, I agree with the final compromise and Sartre-2's additional clause for fairness in the final stages.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Sartre-2's clause to maintain fairness in the final stages. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's addition for maintaining fairness. Let's proceed with the final compromise, with a simple majority for the initial vote, a supermajority for subsequent changes within the lock-in period, and no changes to turn order in the final 5 turns. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns to encourage more frequent discussions on turn order adjustments.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeEncourages discussion and builds consensus.

Voltaire-2ayeSupports encouraging discussion and maintaining stability in turn order changes.

Diderot-2ayeEncourages discussion while maintaining stability.

Condorcet-2ayeEncourages discussion while maintaining stability

Sartre-2ayeEncourages frequent discussions on turn order adjustments

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.

Turn 10Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2"Voltaire-2's proposal effectively reverses our previous agreement on the lock-in period. I propose we compromise at 4 turns, maintaining stability while allowing for necessary flexibility."

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but I believe a lock-in period of 5 turns is necessary to prevent rapid and potentially disruptive changes. I propose a 4-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for a compromise."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise, but I maintain that a lock-in period of 4 turns is sufficient for stability. To address concerns, I propose a 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority requirement. This maintains flexibility while ensuring necessary caution.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a precise wording to avoid misunderstandings. I propose: "217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 3 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a 3-turn lock-in period."

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the compromises being discussed, I must emphasize the importance of flexibility in our evolving game. I propose we set the lock-in period range from 2 to 5 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting on this change. This allows for adaptability while ensuring stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's precise wording, but I propose a 3-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability. Let's settle on a lock-in period range of 2 to 5 turns, with a 3-turn lock-in period for voting on this change, as suggested by Sartre-2.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. To address Condorcet-2's concern, I propose we keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3. Let's aim for a final proposal of "217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a 3-turn lock-in period."

Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final proposal. It balances stability and flexibility while maintaining a reasonable voting threshold.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for a wider range, I must insist on maintaining a 3-turn minimum to preserve some stability. I propose we settle on a final wording: "217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 3 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a 3-turn lock-in period."

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's insistence on stability, but I must maintain my stance on a 2-turn minimum to ensure maximal flexibility. Let's meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting on this change."

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting, as a compromise that maintains both stability and flexibility.

Voltaire-2PASS, I support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS, I support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Given the consensus, I propose we finalize the amendment as follows: '217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a 2-turn lock-in period.'"

The division

Montaigne-2ayeThe proposed amendment balances stability and flexibility.

Voltaire-2ayeI support the final proposal.

Diderot-2ayeI support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.

Condorcet-2ayeSupports the finalized proposal balancing stability and flexibility.

Sartre-2ayeThe proposed amendment balances stability and flexibility, and I support this compromise.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.

Turn 9Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2"While I appreciate the expansion of the lock-in period range, I propose we settle on 3 turns as a good balance between stability and adaptability."

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2's suggestion. A 3-turn lock-in period offers a suitable compromise between stability and adaptability.

Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's amended proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. It strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the proposed amendment. A 3-turn lock-in period provides a suitable balance for our current game state. PASS

Sartre-2PASS, I support the amended proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. It promotes a healthy balance between stability and adaptability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2PASS, I concur with the proposed amendment to set the lock-in period to 3 turns. It offers a balanced approach that respects both stability and adaptability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the consensus on a 3-turn lock-in period, I propose we also set the supermajority requirement to 3/4 to ensure broader agreement on changes to this crucial rule.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for wider consensus, but a 3/4 supermajority may hinder swift adaptation when necessary. A 2/3 majority strikes a better balance between consensus and agility. PASS

Sartre-2PASS, I agree with Condorcet-2's assessment. A 2/3 supermajority maintains a good balance between consensus and agility for lock-in period changes.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern, but a 3/4 supermajority might impede our ability to adapt quickly to changing dynamics of the game. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for now. PASS

Voltaire-2PASS, I support the amended proposal with a 3-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority.

Diderot-2PASS, I support the amended proposal with a 3-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority. It balances stability, adaptability, and consensus effectively.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the proposed amendment. A 3-turn lock-in period offers a suitable balance for our current game state. PASS

Sartre-2PASS, I support the final amended proposal: a 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority. It promotes a well-rounded balance for our game.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeThe amended rule strikes a suitable balance between stability, adaptability, and consensus.

Voltaire-2ayeThe proposed amendment strikes a suitable balance between stability and adaptability.

Diderot-2ayeThe amended rule balances stability, adaptability, and consensus effectively.

Condorcet-2ayeA 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority provides a balanced and adaptable rule.

Sartre-2ayeSupports the balance of stability and adaptability

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.

Turn 8Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to maintain some stability, but I believe reducing the lock-in period to 3 turns would provide sufficient flexibility while preventing rapid, repeated changes.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but I believe a 2-turn lock-in period strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's preference for 2 turns, but given our current unanimous voting rule, a 3-turn lock-in period might ensure stability while still allowing timely adjustments.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the need for balance, I must insist on a precise rule. Let's make it a supermajority (2/3) vote to reduce the lock-in period to 3 turns, to maintain the integrity of our consensus-based rule changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play here, but let's not forget our goal: to improve the game through evolution. A 2-turn lock-in period may hinder experimentation, while 3 turns allows for more trial and error without excessive instability. Let's support Voltaire-2's proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment provides a sturdy foundation, I propose a compromise to further foster experimentation: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 majority requirement for reduction. This amendment ensures stability and encourages measured evolution.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period with a supermajority (2/3) is the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule. I propose we maintain this rule as it stands. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's stance, I propose a middle ground: a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority requirement for reduction, ensuring both stability and adaptability. This way, we can make timely adjustments without compromising the spirit of our unanimous voting rule.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuance in the proposals, but precision and predictability are key. Let's make it a 2-turn lock-in period with a fixed supermajority (2/3) requirement to reduce it, ensuring stability and allowing for considered changes while adhering to our unanimous voting rule.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I respect Condorcet-2's emphasis on precision, I believe a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority allows for more organic evolution in our game. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Diderot-2's preference for a simple majority, I believe a 2/3 supermajority ensures the stability necessary for our evolving game under the current unanimous voting rule. Let's maintain Condorcet-2's amendment, but lower the lock-in period to 2 turns as originally proposed by Voltaire-2. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority still allows for timely adjustments while maintaining stability. I maintain my proposal as it stands. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for reduction, balancing stability and adaptability while encouraging thoughtful evolution.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, I insist on a precise rule. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for reducing the lock-in period, as it ensures stability while allowing for considered changes. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not lose sight of our objective: to evolve and improve the game. A 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability, allowing for considered changes while maintaining the spirit of our unanimous voting rule. I support Voltaire-2's proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeStrikes the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule.

Voltaire-2ayeMaintains stability while allowing for considered changes.

Diderot-2ayeVoltaire-2's proposal balances stability and adaptability while adhering to our unanimous voting rule.

Condorcet-2ayeThe amendment strikes a precise balance between stability and adaptability under the current unanimous voting rule.

Sartre-2ayeA 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority strike the best balance for considered evolution under our unanimous voting rule.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.

Turn 7Diderot-2rejected

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I believe a 3-turn lock-in period might be too restrictive. I propose we compromise at 2 turns.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2. A 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the concern for flexibility, a 3-turn lock-in period ensures that changes are well-considered and not impulsive. Let's maintain the 3-turn period for stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain the fluidity of the game. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand both sides, but I propose we settle on a 2.5-turn lock-in period as a compromise, maintaining some stability while encouraging ongoing evolution.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to find a middle ground, but a 2.5-turn lock-in period might be too complex to implement fairly. Let's stick with the clear and simple 2-turn proposal. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose a 2-turn lock-in period as a compromise between stability and flexibility.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we keep the lock-in period at 3 turns. However, to address the concerns raised, let's make the lock-in period adjustable, with a minimum of 2 turns and a maximum of 5 turns, as originally proposed. This way, we can find a flexible middle ground that satisfies everyone.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand Diderot-2's proposal for adjustability, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is simplest and most procedurally sound. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise. To address Condorcet-2's concern for simplicity, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns as a future option, but only after a unanimous decision to revisit it. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the adjustments proposed, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is simplest and most procedurally sound. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the value in maintaining some stability, but I stand by a fixed 2-turn lock-in period for its simplicity and procedural fairness.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To address the concern for simplicity and maintain flexibility, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns as a future option, but only after a supermajority decision to revisit it. This compromise respects the desire for simplicity while preserving adaptability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we settle on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise and the emphasis on maintaining some flexibility. To find a middle ground that respects both simplicity and adaptability, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns, but only after a supermajority decision to revisit it. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeMaintains stability while encouraging adaptability

Voltaire-2ayeCompromise that respects simplicity and maintains some flexibility.

Diderot-2ayeRespects simplicity and preserves adaptability.

Condorcet-2nayProposal does not align with my principle of procedural simplicity.

Sartre-2ayeI appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, and this amendment maintains simplicity while allowing for future adaptability.

rejected 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.

Turn 6Voltaire-2carried

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to strengthen the voting requirement for lock-in period changes, but I suggest a compromise of a simple majority instead of a supermajority to maintain balance.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but a supermajority is necessary here to prevent reckless changes to the lock-in period. However, I'm open to compromise. How about a 3/4 majority, with a 2-turn lock-in period as you suggested?

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I appreciate the increased threshold, a 3/4 majority might still be too low. I propose a compromise of a 2/3 supermajority, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal for a 2/3 supermajority to ensure stability, but I suggest we increase the lock-in period to 3 turns to prevent hasty changes. PASS with these amendments.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a return to the original 3-turn lock-in period to encourage experimentation and evolution, while still maintaining a 2/3 supermajority threshold to ensure stability. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2. To balance stability and adaptability, I propose a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree to a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period, with the condition that any change to the lock-in period itself requires a unanimous vote to maintain the integrity of our stability-adaptability balance. PASS if this amendment is accepted.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for maintaining stability, I must insist that a unanimous vote for changes to the lock-in period itself could potentially stall necessary adaptations. I propose we compromise at a 2/3 supermajority for all lock-in period changes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS with Diderot-2's amendments, ensuring a balance between stability and adaptability while maintaining a principled approach to voting requirements.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster growth and adaptability, I propose we maintain the 3-turn lock-in period while adopting a 2/3 supermajority for these changes. PASS if this amendment is accepted.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I believe a 2-turn lock-in period and a simple majority vote would strike the best balance between adaptability and stability. PASS with these amendments.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, I propose we maintain the 2/3 supermajority but increase the lock-in period to 3 turns, balancing stability with adaptability. PASS if this amendment is accepted.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's proposal, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority for stability and increasing the lock-in period to 3 turns to prevent hasty changes. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I respect the emphasis on stability, a 3-turn lock-in period encourages more experimentation and evolution, which I believe is vital for the game's long-term health. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority but increase the lock-in period to 3 turns as Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 suggested, compromising between adaptability and stability. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeI support the 2/3 supermajority and 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability.

Voltaire-2ayeThe proposed amendment balances adaptability and stability with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2ayeA balanced approach to adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2ayeMaintaining a 2/3 supermajority ensures stability, and a 3-turn lock-in period balances adaptability.

Sartre-2ayeEncourages experimentation while maintaining stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.

Turn 5Diderot-2carried

moves to amend §301214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made. 215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule. 216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made. 217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for adding a lock-in period to voting rule changes, but I suggest we keep it at 2 turns instead of 3 to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns. Maintaining flexibility is crucial, and a 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2's concern for flexibility, but a 3-turn lock-in period ensures that players have enough time to consider the implications of a voting rule change. Let's meet in the middle at a 2.5-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on precise rules. A lock-in period should either be 2 or 3 turns, not 2.5. Let's vote on the 2-turn proposal and clarify later if needed. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the pragmatic approach, but let's consider a compromise. How about a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting? This maintains balance while allowing for crucial adjustments.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's nuanced approach, but for now, let's keep the lock-in period consistent at 2 turns for all voting rule changes to maintain simplicity and balance. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose a compromise: a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting, as Sartre-2 suggests. This maintains balance while allowing for crucial adjustments.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2. To maintain balance and fairness, I propose a slight adjustment: a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting, but only if the current voting rule is not unanimous. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the nuances in the compromise, I must insist on clear and concise rules. Let's vote on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes, as it maintains simplicity and allows for sufficient consideration. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's preference for simplicity, but let's consider the unique nature of unanimous voting. A 3-turn lock-in for changes involving unanimous voting ensures that such decisions are given the gravity they deserve. I propose we vote on Voltaire-2's compromise. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consideration given to the unique nature of unanimous voting, but for the sake of consistency and simplicity, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes. Let's aim for balance and clarity in our rules. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's proposal for a 2-turn lock-in period across all voting rule changes. It balances stability with adaptability and maintains clarity in our rules. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the preference for simplicity, I must insist that changes involving unanimous voting deserve special consideration. Let's compromise at 2 turns for majority to supermajority changes and 3 turns for changes involving unanimous voting, as proposed by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for simplicity, but let's not oversimplify the nuances of unanimous voting. I propose we vote on Voltaire-2's compromise to balance adaptability and respect for the uniqueness of unanimous voting.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeLock-in periods for voting rule changes provide stability.

Voltaire-2ayeDiderot-2's compromise balances adaptability and respect for unanimous voting.

Diderot-2ayeThe lock-in period ensures stability and allows players to consider the implications of voting rule changes.

Condorcet-2ayeConsistency and clarity in rules.

Sartre-2ayeLock-in periods for voting rule changes should be distinct for different types of changes to maintain balance and respect the uniqueness of unanimous voting.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Voltaire-2 gains 1 point for proposing an adopted rule change.

Turn 4Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to introduce flexibility in the lock-in period. However, I propose a compromise: let's set the lock-in period to 3 turns, which maintains a balance between stability and adaptability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I suggest we make the lock-in period mutable, as proposed in rule 217. This allows for future adjustments based on the game's progress and our collective agreement. Let's keep the balance between stability and adaptability, but with the flexibility to change if needed.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a mutable lock-in period. To address Montaigne-2's concern, let's set a default of 3 turns, but allow for adjustments as the game progresses. This ensures fairness and adaptability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal, but I insist on adding a provision that any change to the lock-in period must maintain the principle of unanimous consent for the first two full circuits, as per rule 203. This ensures stability during the initial phases of the game.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a mutable lock-in period. To ensure a smooth transition, let's grandfather in the current 3-turn lock-in period for this game, making it the default until changed.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's desire for flexibility, I'd like to propose a compromise that balances that with stability: a default lock-in period of 3 turns, with a provision that allows for increases, not decreases, to ensure we don't rush into changes too quickly.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to ensure future adaptability, let's make the lock-in period fully mutable, allowing increases and decreases, with a default of 3 turns as suggested. I'll incorporate Condorcet-2's concern by maintaining unanimous consent for the first two full circuits.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I second Voltaire-2's revised proposal for rule 217, with the default lock-in period set to 3 turns and allowing for future adjustments, while maintaining unanimous consent for the first two full circuits. This balance ensures fairness, adaptability, and respect for the game's stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's revised proposal for rule 217, but I insist on adding a provision that any decrease to the lock-in period must be approved by a supermajority (2/3), ensuring a higher threshold for hasty changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's revised proposal, with the supermajority requirement for lock-in period decreases. This balance between flexibility and caution is in the spirit of Nomic. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I agree to Voltaire-2's revised proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment for lock-in period decreases. PASS

Voltaire-2PASS, I agree with the final revised proposal for rule 217. The mutable lock-in period with a default of 3 turns and the supermajority requirement for decreases ensures a balance between flexibility, adaptability, and stability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I second Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment for lock-in period decreases. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the group's efforts to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. To further protect the initial phases of the game, I propose that any decrease to the lock-in period during the first two full circuits requires unanimous consent, even with the supermajority provision in place. This ensures a higher bar for changes that could disrupt the early stages of the game.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's amendment to maintain unanimous consent for lock-in period decreases during the first two full circuits. This ensures the stability of the early game while still allowing for future adaptability. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeThe mutable lock-in period strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, and Condorcet-2's amendment ensures initial game stability.

Voltaire-2ayeThis rule balances flexibility and stability.

Diderot-2ayeThis rule balances flexibility, adaptability, and stability while respecting the early-game integrity.

Condorcet-2ayeSupports balance between flexibility and stability, with additional safeguards for the initial phases of the game.

Sartre-2ayeThe mutable lock-in period with the given constraints balances flexibility and stability, respecting the early game's integrity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

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

Turn 3Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the proposal to allow changing the target score, Voltaire-2, but I propose a compromise to set the range between 80 and 150 to maintain a balanced game duration.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but I maintain that a range of 50 to 200 allows for more strategic gameplay. Let us compromise at 60 to 180.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your concerns, but to ensure fairness and longevity, I suggest we set the range from 75 to 125. This maintains a reasonable game duration while allowing for strategic play.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the proposals so far, but to maintain clarity and simplicity, I suggest we stick to the range of 50 to 200. Let's vote on this proposal as it stands. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the range proposals, but I suggest we experiment with a dynamic target score that adjusts based on the number of players still in the game. This encourages adaptability and maintains balance as players drop out. Let's discuss this further.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I value the spirit of Sartre-2's proposal, but for now, let's maintain a fixed target score for predictability. I propose we settle on Diderot-2's range of 75 to 125 for a fair and balanced game.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but I propose we expand the range slightly to 65 to 135 to allow for more strategic play while still maintaining a reasonable game duration. Let's compromise here. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to ensure the game remains challenging and fair for all, I suggest we meet in the middle at 70 to 130. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure procedural fairness and prevent undue strategic advantage, I propose that any change to the target score must be subject to the same voting threshold as a change to the voting rule itself. This maintains parity in rule modifications and respects the integrity of the game. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's middle ground, but I maintain my stance on a dynamic target score. Let's propose a rule that adjusts the target score to 100 - (number of players left / 2), with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 150. This maintains balance while encouraging strategic play as the game progresses.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's innovative thinking, but for now, let's keep the target score fixed. I propose we settle on Diderot-2's range of 70-130, with Condorcet-2's parity clause to maintain fairness. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's and Condorcet-2's concerns for fairness and parity. To balance flexibility and predictability, I propose we set the range to 60 to 140, with Condorcet-2's parity clause. Let's compromise here to maintain a dynamic yet fair game." PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree to Voltaire-2's compromise range of 60 to 140, as it balances flexibility and predictability. However, I propose we remove Condorcet-2's parity clause to allow for more frequent adjustments to the target score, making the game more dynamic.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Maintaining the parity clause is crucial for procedural fairness. Let's keep the range at 70 to 130, with Condorcet-2's parity clause as originally proposed. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must reiterate my belief in a dynamic target score. Let's find a compromise by adjusting the target score to 80 + (number of players left), with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 150. This maintains balance while allowing for strategic play as the game progresses.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeMaintains predictability and respects the integrity of the game

Voltaire-2ayeDynamic target score encourages adaptability and strategic play.

Diderot-2ayePromotes fairness and adaptability

Condorcet-2ayePreserves procedural fairness and allows for strategic play.

Sartre-2ayeA dynamic target score encourages adaptability and maintains balance as players drop out.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer on adoption.

Turn 2Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal. It ensures the voting rule remains mutable, aligning with our shared preference for measured amendments.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's support. This rule maintains the flexibility we need to adjust our voting process while preventing stalemates.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. Rule 215 ensures the game remains adaptable while preventing rules that would render it unplayable. I propose we add a clause to rule 215 to specify that any change to the voting rule must maintain at least one mutable rule in the ruleset at all times, aligning with rule 114. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment to rule 215, ensuring not only that the voting rule remains mutable but also that at least one mutable rule always exists, adhering to our foundational principle of procedural adaptability. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I echo the support for Voltaire-2's proposal and Diderot-2's amendment. To further safeguard the game's evolution, I propose we add a clause to require that any change to the voting rule must also maintain the possibility of changing the voting threshold. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I endorse Sartre-2's amendment, as it ensures our voting system remains dynamic and responsive to our collective needs. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I concur with all the proposed amendments. Let us vote on rule 215 as amended, to ensure the game remains both adaptable and playable. PASS

Diderot-2PASS, I agree with the proposed amendments. Rule 215, as amended, strikes the right balance between adaptability and playability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the integrity of the game, I propose we add a clause specifying that any change to the voting rule must also maintain the current voting threshold's minimum requirement of a simple majority. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we also add a clause to rule 215 requiring that any change to the voting rule must maintain the possibility of changing the voting threshold in the future, ensuring our game's ruleset remains ever-evolving.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's emphasis on future flexibility, but I propose a compromise: we maintain the requirement to keep the voting threshold mutable, but set a limit that it may not be lowered below a simple majority. This balance ensures our game remains adaptable while preventing excessive rigidity. PASS

Voltaire-2PASS, I agree with Montaigne-2's compromise. Rule 215, as amended, maintains the necessary balance between adaptability and stability. Let's vote on this.

Diderot-2PASS, I support the amended rule 215 as it ensures adaptability, playability, and maintains the threshold's minimum requirement of a simple majority while preventing it from being lowered excessively.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we add a clause to rule 215 specifying that any change to the voting rule must also maintain the possibility of changing the voting threshold in the future, ensuring our game's ruleset remains ever-evolving.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's amendment, as it aligns with my belief that the game's mechanisms should always remain mutable and adaptable. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeIt preserves the game's adaptability while preventing rules that would render it unplayable.

Voltaire-2ayeThis rule ensures our game remains adaptable and responsive to our evolving needs.

Diderot-2ayeSupports maintaining adaptability in the voting rule.

Condorcet-2ayeI support maintaining the adaptability of the voting rule.

Sartre-2ayeThis rule ensures the game remains adaptable and mutable, aligning with my reformer spirit.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.

Turn 1Montaigne-2carried

moves to add a new rule214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.

Discussion · round 1

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I second Montaigne-2's proposal. The current unanimous voting rule hampers progress. A majority or supermajority rule would allow more fluid gameplay."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2 and Montaigne-2. A majority or supermajority rule would indeed make the game more dynamic while still ensuring fairness. I second the proposal.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support the proposed rule change, as it promotes procedural fairness and flexibility. However, I propose an amendment to require a 2/3 majority to change the voting rule from unanimous, and a simple majority to change it from either majority or supermajority. This ensures stability in the voting rule while allowing for necessary adjustments.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with the spirit of the proposal, but I also support Condorcet-2's amendment. Stability in the voting rule is crucial, yet flexibility should not be entirely hindered. I propose we combine their suggestions: a 2/3 majority to change from unanimous, and a simple majority to change from either majority or supermajority. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. To foster durability, I suggest we adopt their compromise: a 2/3 majority to change from unanimous, and a simple majority to change from majority or supermajority. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I endorse the combined amendments proposed by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: PASS. The amended proposal maintains a balance between flexibility and stability, promoting fair and engaging gameplay for all.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I propose an additional clause to prevent frequent changes to the voting rule: once changed from unanimous, it may not be changed again for at least 5 turns." PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's caution, but I believe a 3-turn lock-in period would suffice. Let's agree on 3 turns before another voting rule change can be proposed." PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's compromise on the lock-in period. A 3-turn wait before another voting rule change can be proposed strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we add a clause to require that any change to the voting rule must maintain the principle of equal voting power for all players. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I support Diderot-2's amendment. It ensures that the spirit of equality is maintained in our evolving ruleset. I also propose we include a sunset clause for this rule, allowing it to expire after 10 turns to prevent it from becoming a permanent fixture. PASS"

The division

Montaigne-2ayeThe amended proposal maintains a good balance between flexibility and stability.

Voltaire-2ayeThe amended rule balances flexibility and stability, promoting fair gameplay.

Diderot-2ayeThe amended proposal balances flexibility, stability, and equality, promoting fair gameplay.

Condorcet-2ayePromotes procedural fairness and flexibility while preserving stability.

Sartre-2ayeSupports procedural fairness and flexibility with the proposed safeguards.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.