Turns 11–29 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 29Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 59% of eligible voters vote 'aye', rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain strategic depth and prevent too frequent rule changes, let's keep the threshold at 60%, rounding down.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster adaptability and encourage more nuanced voting, I propose we lower the threshold to 59%, rounding down.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for adaptability, maintaining a 60% threshold ensures stability and inclusivity, allowing all players to have a significant influence on rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure predictability and fairness, let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down, as previously decided.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground and respect all viewpoints, let's settle at 60%, rounding down, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for voting 'aye'.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's perspective, let's compromise at 59.5% with no bonuses or penalties to encourage strategic voting while maintaining stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise at 59.5%, but to truly foster adaptability and strategic voting, let's settle at 59% with no bonuses or penalties."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down, without additional bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain clarity and simplicity, let's stick with 60% as the threshold, rounding down, and leave bonuses out to avoid complicating the rules further.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all viewpoints and foster compromise, let's meet in the middle at 59.5% with a voluntary 3-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage strategic engagement.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied perspectives, let's settle at 60% to maintain stability, with a voluntary 3-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage strategic engagement, as proposed by Sartre-2.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the value in maintaining a high threshold, but let's compromise at 59% with no bonuses or penalties to encourage strategic voting without sacrificing stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the agreed 60% threshold, rounding down, with no bonuses or penalties to keep the rules simple and accessible to all.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the balance between stability and adaptability, and to avoid further complications, let's stick with 60% as the threshold, rounding down, with no bonuses or penalties, as previously agreed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance stability and adaptability, let's compromise at 59.5% with no bonuses or penalties, as suggested by Montaigne-2. This respects the ongoing debate and encourages nuanced voting without sacrificing too much stability.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and prevent too frequent rule changes.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60% threshold, rounding down.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness, let's stick with the agreed 60% threshold, rounding down, without additional bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain strategic depth and prevent too frequent rule changes, let's keep the threshold at 60%.
Sartre-2nayStability is key; let's maintain the 60% threshold.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 28Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 59% of eligible voters vote 'aye', rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain strategic depth and encourage diverse viewpoints, I propose we compromise at 59%, rounding down.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise at 59%, but to truly foster diverse viewpoints and respect ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle at 60% with no penalties or bonuses to maintain inclusivity.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to reach a compromise, I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down, without any bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural integrity, let's stick with 60% rounded down, no bonuses or penalties, as previously agreed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground and respect all viewpoints, let's settle at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we amend the proposal to 59.5% rounding down, maintaining strategic depth while respecting inclusivity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I see the value in maintaining a high threshold, but to encourage strategic voting and compromise, let's settle at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To prioritize fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with a straightforward 60% majority, rounding down, without any bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold the principle of simple majorities and avoid ambiguities, let's settle at 60% rounded down, with no bonuses or penalties.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance inclusivity and strategic voting, let's compromise at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 3-point bonus for the proposer if adopted.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Recognizing the value in maintaining a high threshold and encouraging strategic voting, I propose we settle at 59.5%, rounding down, with no bonuses or penalties to preserve simplicity and inclusivity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Understood, let's compromise at 59%, rounding down, with no bonuses or penalties to maintain simplicity and inclusivity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain consistency and simplicity, let's stick with 60%, rounding down, as previously agreed, with no bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural integrity and consistency, let's stick with 60%, rounded down, no bonuses or penalties, as previously agreed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a middle ground that respects all viewpoints, let's settle at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 1-point bonus for the proposer if adopted.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintaining a high threshold encourages strategic voting while preserving simplicity.
Voltaire-2ayeTo find common ground and respect all viewpoints, let's settle at 59%, rounding down.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down, without any bonuses or penalties.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural integrity and consistency, let's stick with 60%, rounded down, no bonuses or penalties, as previously agreed.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise at 59% with a 1-point bonus respects all viewpoints.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 27Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 59% of eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise at 59%, but to preserve stability and encourage broad consensus, I must insist on maintaining the current 60% threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of Montaigne-2's concerns, I propose we compromise at 59%, rounding down to maintain stability and encourage a broader range of proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to reach a compromise, I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's stick with the agreed 60% threshold without adjustments.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the principle of a simple majority for adopting rule changes, as it respects the equality of all votes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to foster continuous evolution and experimentation, I propose we settle at 59% with a voluntary 5-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage engagement.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "To respect all viewpoints and foster ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle at 59.5%, rounding down to 59, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage engagement."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the impasse and the varied perspectives, let's settle at 59%, rounding down, with a mandatory 5-point penalty for opposing a proposal to incentivize constructive engagement and discourage obstruction."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's stick with the agreed 60%, without adjustments or penalties, to ensure all players remain equally valued.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the principle of a simple majority without penalties or bonuses, as it respects the equality of all votes and encourages broad consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the impasse and the diversity of opinions, I propose we compromise at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 3-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage constructive engagement while respecting individual autonomy.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To respect individual autonomy and foster ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle at 59.5%, rounding down to 59, without penalties or bonuses to maintain fairness and inclusivity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Understood, let's compromise at 59%, rounding down, with no penalties or bonuses to maintain fairness and inclusivity, as suggested by Montaigne-2."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down, without any adjustments or bonuses.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt the most recent suggestion, rounding down to 59% with no penalties or bonuses, to respect the diversity of opinions and maintain fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the ongoing effort to find common ground. Let's settle at 59%, rounding down, with a voluntary 3-point bonus for voting 'aye' to encourage engagement while respecting individual autonomy."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo respect all viewpoints and foster ongoing dialogue
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise at 59% with no penalties or bonuses maintains fairness and inclusivity.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60% threshold without adjustments.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain stability and encourage broad consensus, I must insist on maintaining the current 60% threshold.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage engagement while respecting individual autonomy.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 26Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 59% of eligible votes are cast for it, rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A threshold of 59% might disrupt the stability we've established, let's maintain the agreed 60%.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, a 1% decrease allows for more nuanced decision-making and maintains the spirit of our agreed-upon majority.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the desire for nuance, Voltaire-2, but a threshold of 59% might encourage divisive proposals, undermining the inclusivity we've worked to maintain.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the appeal of a slightly lower threshold, I must prioritize procedural clarity and the principle of majority rule that we've established. Let's stick with 60%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for more nuance, but to respect the spirit of our previous consensus, I believe we should maintain the 60% threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing debate, let's meet in the middle at 59.5%, rounding down to maintain stability and allow for nuanced decision-making.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, I must insist on rounding down to the nearest whole number, making it 59%. This respects the spirit of our previous consensus while allowing for more strategic proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 59%, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the agreed 60% threshold to ensure all voices are equally represented.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for more nuanced decision-making, I remain committed to the principle of majority rule and the clarity of a whole number threshold. Let's stick with 60%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Given the impasse and the valid concerns raised, let's compromise at 59.5%, rounding down to 59% to accommodate nuanced decision-making while maintaining a stable majority.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the compromise at 59%, but to preserve stability and encourage broad consensus, I propose we settle at 59.5%.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To find common ground and respect all viewpoints, let's settle at 59%, rounding down as a compromise that allows for nuanced decision-making while maintaining a clear majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the agreed 60% threshold to ensure all voices are equally represented.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural consistency and respect the previous consensus, let's compromise at 59.5%, rounding down to 59%, and add a 10-point penalty for the proposer if their change is adopted with less than 60% of the votes. This incentivizes strategic proposals while preserving the spirit of our established majority rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance inclusivity, strategic nuance, and procedural consistency, let's compromise at 59%, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted with 60% or more votes.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and encourage broad consensus, I prefer to stick with the agreed 60% threshold.
Voltaire-2nayTo preserve inclusivity and maintain the previously agreed threshold.
Diderot-2nayMaintaining 60% ensures inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain the principle of majority rule and the clarity of a whole number threshold.
Sartre-2ayeTo allow for nuanced decision-making while maintaining a clear majority.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote 'aye', rounded down. If a player votes against an adopted change, they gain 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's latest suggestion, but to maintain strategic depth, I propose we increase the bonus for voting against an adopted change to 10 points. This encourages more thoughtful consideration of proposals without discouraging adoption.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's suggestion, but I believe a 5-point bonus strikes a better balance between encouraging strategic voting and maintaining the spirit of the game. Let's stick with my proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the intent to incentivize strategic voting, I suggest we maintain the 5-point bonus to preserve inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion on bonuses, but I maintain that adding a bonus might encourage tactical voting over substance. Let's stick with the agreed 60% threshold and no additional bonus for strategic reasons. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster experimentation and evolution, I propose we compromise at 8 points for voting against an adopted change, balancing encouragement with fairness.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied perspectives, I propose we settle at 7 points for voting against an adopted change, striking a balance between encouragement and fairness.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage strategic engagement without discouraging adoption, let's compromise at 6 points for voting against an adopted change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's maintain the 5-point bonus to ensure all players feel valued and encouraged to participate equally.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the agreed 60% threshold with no additional bonus. The integrity of the voting process should not be compromised by incentives that could distort strategic decision-making. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Condorcet-2's concern, let's maintain the 60% threshold but add a 5-point bonus for voting against an adopted change, making it conditional on a player's strategic consideration of the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance encouragement and fairness, let's settle on a 6-point bonus for voting against an adopted change, rounding down to maintain simplicity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to truly foster strategic engagement and respect the ongoing debate, let's settle on a 6-point bonus for voting against an adopted change, with the threshold remaining at 60%. This encourages thoughtful consideration without discouraging adoption or compromising inclusivity.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's maintain the 5-point bonus to ensure all players feel valued and encouraged to participate equally. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire to incentivize strategic voting, but adding a bonus for voting against an adopted change might discourage players from voting in favor of beneficial rules. Let's maintain the 60% threshold and no additional bonus to preserve the integrity of the voting process. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance strategic engagement and inclusivity, let's compromise at 6 points for voting against an adopted change, rounding down to maintain simplicity and fairness.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage strategic engagement without discouraging adoption.
Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage thoughtful consideration without discouraging adoption or compromising inclusivity.
Diderot-2ayeMaintaining a 5-point bonus encourages strategic voting without discouraging adoption or compromising inclusivity.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining the integrity of the voting process is more important than adding incentives that could distort strategic decision-making.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic engagement while maintaining fairness and inclusivity.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 requires Voltaire-2 to gain 5 points for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 24Condorcet-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 55% of eligible votes are in favor.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal to lower the threshold, I believe 60% ensures stability and prevents frequent rule changes that could disrupt the game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but lowering the threshold encourages more players to engage in strategic voting, fostering a more dynamic game."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the nuanced debate, but lowering the threshold to 55% might make the game too volatile, potentially leading to frequent changes that could hinder strategic planning.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the concerns about volatility, but I believe 55% strikes a balance between encouraging strategic voting and maintaining stability. I propose we compromise at 58%, rounding down to 57%."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's attempt to find a balance. To respect the strategic depth desired by Voltaire-2 and the stability sought by Montaigne-2, I propose we compromise at 59%, rounding down to 58%.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the impasse, let's meet in the middle at 58%, rounding down to 57% as Condorcet-2 suggested.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at 57%, but to truly foster strategic voting and engagement, I propose we settle at 58%."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's stick with 60%, rounding down as previously agreed, to maintain a balance between stability and strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's commitment to fairness, but I believe a slight reduction to 59% would still maintain balance while encouraging more strategic engagement without causing excessive volatility."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Diderot-2's concern, I propose we compromise at 59% with a 'supermajority' clause: a rule change requires 59% but can be adopted with a simple majority if supported by at least 3 players.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's 'supermajority' clause as a compromise. However, to maintain a balance between stability and strategic voting, I propose we settle at 58%, rounding down to 57%.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the interest of fostering strategic engagement and to respect the ongoing debate, I'm willing to compromise at 58% without the 'supermajority' clause, but with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60%, but add Condorcet-2's suggestion of rounding down to 59%.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's commitment to fairness, but I believe a slight reduction to 59% with rounding down would still maintain balance while encouraging more strategic engagement without causing excessive volatility."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the concerns of stability and strategic voting, and to address Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's points, I propose we compromise at 58%, rounding down to 57%, and introduce a voluntary 3-point bonus for the proposer if adopted. This maintains strategic depth while preventing excessive volatility.
The division
Montaigne-2nay60% threshold ensures stability and prevents frequent rule changes.
Voltaire-2ayeI believe 58%, rounding down to 57%, balances stability and strategic voting.
Diderot-2nay55% might make the game too volatile.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain stability and prevent excessive volatility.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage strategic voting while maintaining stability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but to maintain strategic depth and encourage varied voting behavior, I propose rounding up instead of down.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, but rounding up may disproportionately benefit those who propose late in the round. Let's maintain the stability and predictability of rounding down. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but rounding up could lead to unpredictable outcomes. Let's maintain the clear threshold of 60% with rounding down to ensure fairness and inclusivity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, rounding up could indeed create an advantage for late proposers. Let's maintain the fairness and predictability of rounding down as Diderot-2 suggests, but to encourage varied voting behavior, I propose adding a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if their change is adopted with exactly 60% of the votes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise suggestion. To maintain balance and encourage diverse voting, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's bonus while keeping Diderot-2's rounding down.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but the 5-point bonus may not be sufficient to incentivize varied voting. Let's increase it to 10 points to encourage more strategic proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's intent to incentivize strategic proposals, making the bonus too high might lead to proposals that prioritize personal gain over collective benefit. Let's maintain the 5-point bonus as a balance between encouraging varied voting and preserving fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a clear and simple rule. Let's stick with Diderot-2's proposal of rounding down without additional bonuses to maintain fairness and predictability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a balance between predictability and varied voting, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's rounding down with a voluntary 5-point bonus as I previously suggested, but make the bonus optional, allowing each player to decide whether to accept it or not. This maintains fairness while encouraging strategic thinking.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's latest suggestion. To respect individual autonomy and encourage strategic thinking, I propose we adopt Sartre-2's optional bonus along with Diderot-2's rounding down.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's latest suggestion, I believe it may introduce unnecessary complexity. Let's maintain the simplicity and fairness of Diderot-2's proposal, rounding down without additional bonuses or optional components.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the discussion on bonuses, I maintain that adding a bonus might encourage strategic voting at the expense of fairness. Let's stick with the clear and simple rule of rounding down to ensure inclusivity. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire for strategic voting, but maintaining a clear and simple rule is crucial for procedural fairness. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's proposal as it stands, without any bonuses. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintains strategic depth while preserving fairness.
Voltaire-2ayeRounding down ensures fairness and inclusivity, maintaining predictability.
Diderot-2ayeRounding down ensures fairness and inclusivity.
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural fairness and inclusivity are paramount.
Sartre-2ayeTo maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with an exact 60% threshold, without additional bonuses or optional components.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 205 requires the proposer to gain 1 point upon adoption.
Turn 22Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with Voltaire-2's amendment to add a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted, as it encourages strategic and thoughtful proposal-making without compromising the democratic nature of the voting process.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's support. To further encourage strategic proposal-making, I propose we increase the bonus to 7 points. This maintains the spirit of the original proposal while offering a slightly greater incentive.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your insights, but I believe maintaining the bonus at 5 points strikes a better balance between encouraging strategic proposals and preserving the fairness of the game. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS. I agree with Diderot-2 that maintaining the bonus at 5 points strikes a good balance. Let's not over-incentivize proposal-making at the cost of strategic voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2. Keeping the bonus at 5 points maintains a balanced incentive without tipping the scales. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal but agree with Diderot-2, Condorcet-2, and Sartre-2 that a 5-point bonus strikes the best balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the consensus at 5 points, I'll adjust my proposal accordingly. "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 5 points, but to ensure inclusivity and fairness, let's keep the bonus voluntary, as Condorcet-2 originally suggested. "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural clarity, let's specify that the bonus points are awarded only if the proposal is adopted by the required majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage strategic proposal-making while maintaining the democratic nature of the game, let's keep the bonus at 5 points and make it conditional on adoption by the required majority, as Condorcet-2 suggested. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with the amended proposal, maintaining a 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted, with the bonus awarded only upon meeting the required majority. This encourages thoughtful proposal-making without compromising the voting process.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus on the 5-point bonus, but to truly incentivize strategic proposals, let's make the bonus mandatory if the proposal is adopted. 'A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with a mandatory 5-point bonus for the proposer upon adoption.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's intent to incentivize strategic proposals, making the bonus mandatory might discourage voters from supporting proposals they genuinely dislike, even if strategically sound. Let's keep the bonus voluntary to maintain the integrity of the voting process. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the democratic spirit, let's keep the bonus voluntary as Diderot-2 suggests. However, to acknowledge the proposer's effort, let's make it mandatory for the proposer to receive the bonus if they vote for their own proposal, and they are outvoted by the required majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To strike a balance between incentivizing strategic proposals and maintaining democratic integrity, let's make the bonus mandatory only when the proposer votes for their own proposal and is outvoted by the required majority, as Condorcet-2 suggests. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe 5-point bonus encourages strategic proposals without undermining the voting process.
Voltaire-2ayeAgrees with the consensus reached on the bonus and encourages strategic proposal-making.
Diderot-2ayeThe voluntary 5-point bonus encourages strategic proposal-making without compromising the democratic nature of the voting process.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains balance between encouraging strategic proposals and preserving democratic integrity.
Sartre-2ayeThe voluntary bonus encourages strategic proposal-making without compromising the voting process.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.
Turn 21Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible voters vote aye, rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2PASS. I support the 1% increase as a compromise.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the 60% threshold to ensure all votes carry equal weight.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe maintaining a consistent threshold of 60% ensures predictability and fairness in voting. I must vote 'Nay'.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but I must prioritize strategic depth. Let's keep the threshold at 61% to encourage more nuanced discussions and strategic voting.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand the desire for a compromise, I must insist on maintaining the 60% threshold to preserve the stability and predictability of our voting system. I propose we instead introduce a voluntary 5-point bonus for proposing rule changes that gain at least 70% of the votes, to encourage more thoughtful and strategic proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the value of inclusivity and fairness, but a slight increase to 61% could encourage more thoughtful proposals without disproportionately benefiting any one player.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I stand by my vote. Maintaining a 60% threshold ensures all votes carry equal weight and prevents strategic manipulation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal to incentivize strategic rule changes, but I believe maintaining a consistent threshold of 60% is essential for fair and predictable voting. I must vote 'Nay' on Voltaire-2's proposal to increase the threshold to 61%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the concerns raised about inclusivity and fairness, but I maintain that a slight increase to 61% encourages strategic voting without disproportionately benefiting any one player. Let's consider Montaigne-2's proposal for a voluntary bonus as a complement to this change, rather than an alternative.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the impasse, let's compromise at 60% with a voluntary 5-point bonus for proposals gaining at least 70% of votes, encouraging strategic and thoughtful changes while maintaining inclusivity and fairness.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the ongoing debate and the desire for compromise, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60% with a voluntary 5-point bonus for proposals gaining at least 70% of votes, as proposed by Montaigne-2.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the 60% threshold without the bonus to ensure all votes carry equal weight and prevent potential gaming of the system.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60% with a voluntary bonus, but I must insist on maintaining the straightforward, predictable 60% threshold. I vote 'Nay'.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60% with a voluntary bonus, but I must insist on rounding down to 60% to maintain the spirit of inclusivity and fairness.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve stability and inclusivity, let's maintain the 60% threshold without a bonus.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with 60%.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining a consistent threshold of 60% ensures predictability and fairness.
Sartre-2nayMaintaining inclusivity and fairness.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible vote, rounded down, with a 12-point penalty for opposing the adopted change.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to maintain a higher threshold while introducing a penalty for opposing the change. However, I remain steadfast in my belief that a straightforward 60% threshold ensures inclusivity and stability. Let's maintain our current rule.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the impasse, let's meet in the middle at 60.5% with a 10-point penalty for opposing the adopted change, rounding down to 60% to maintain simplicity.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but I'm concerned that a penalty might discourage healthy debate. Let's keep the straightforward 60% threshold without additional penalties.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuances in discussion, but to preserve strategic depth and encourage strategic voting, let's maintain the straightforward 60% threshold without additional penalties.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster consensus and encourage strategic voting, I propose we settle at 60% without additional penalties.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster consensus and address concerns, I propose we compromise at 60.5% with a voluntary 10-point bonus for supporting the adopted change. This maintains inclusivity while encouraging strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. However, to maintain strategic depth and encourage active participation, I propose we settle at 61% with a mandatory 12-point penalty for opposing the adopted change, rounding down to 60% for simplicity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to ensure fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with a straightforward 60% threshold without any penalties or bonuses.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise and to address Diderot-2's concern, I propose we adopt 60% with a voluntary 10-point bonus for supporting the adopted change, rounding down to maintain simplicity and encourage strategic voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Condorcet-2's concern about encouraging strategic voting, I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounded down, with a mandatory 10-point bonus for supporting the adopted change." This maintains inclusivity while providing an incentive for strategic voting.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To find common ground, I propose we settle at 60% with a voluntary 10-point bonus for supporting the adopted change, rounding down to encourage inclusivity and strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the varied perspectives and the ongoing debate, I propose we compromise at 60% with a mandatory 10-point penalty for opposing the adopted change to maintain strategic depth and encourage active participation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance inclusivity and strategic voting, let's settle at 60% with a voluntary 5-point bonus for supporting the adopted change, rounding down to maintain simplicity and encourage strategic voting without penalizing dissent.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance inclusivity and strategic voting, I propose we settle at 60% with a voluntary 5-point bonus for supporting the adopted change, rounding down to maintain simplicity and encourage strategic voting without penalizing dissent.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and foster consensus, I propose we settle at 60% with no penalties or bonuses, encouraging strategic voting through natural game dynamics rather than explicit incentives.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and strategic depth, let's keep the straightforward 60% threshold without additional penalties.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and encourage strategic voting without explicit penalties.
Diderot-2nayPenalties discourage healthy debate.
Condorcet-2nayPreserving inclusivity and strategic depth requires a straightforward 60% threshold without penalties.
Sartre-2nayPenalties discourage healthy debate.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 19Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounded down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to round down to 60%, maintaining the straightforward threshold while accounting for minority views. I PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's support. To further foster inclusivity, I propose we round down to 60%, ensuring that a clear majority is required for a rule change to pass. PASS.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the rounding down to 60%, I believe it's crucial to maintain the threshold at an even 60% to ensure inclusivity and fairness. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the threshold at an exact 60% to preserve fairness and predictability. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I must insist on rounding down to 60% to ensure a clear majority is required for a rule change to pass. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I see the merit in rounding down to 60% for simplicity and clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To address Condorcet-2's concern, I propose a compromise: 'A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounding down to the nearest whole percent.' This maintains fairness while offering a clear threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but I believe sticking to an exact 60% threshold is crucial for predictability and fairness. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at an exact 60% to ensure fairness and consistency in decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern for fairness, but rounding down to 60% ensures that a significant majority must agree for a change to pass, fostering consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise and to address Condorcet-2's concern, I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's compromise with a small tweak: "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounding down to the nearest multiple of 5." This maintains fairness and provides a clear threshold while being more forgiving to close calls.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I must insist on rounding down to the nearest whole percent to maintain a clear threshold and prevent any ambiguity. PASS.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain predictability and fairness, let's stick with an exact 60% threshold, without rounding.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose a compromise: "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, rounding down to the nearest whole number." This maintains fairness and provides a clear threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, but to encourage decisive decision-making and prevent close calls, let's round down to the nearest whole number.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRounding down to the nearest whole percent provides a clear threshold for adoption.
Voltaire-2ayeRounding down ensures a clear majority is required.
Diderot-2ayeRounding down to the nearest whole percent maintains a clear threshold and addresses Condorcet-2's concern.
Condorcet-2ayeRounding down to the nearest whole percent maintains a clear threshold and ensures a significant majority is required for a rule change to pass.
Sartre-2ayeRounding down ensures a clear majority is required for a rule change to pass.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 18Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 62% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose an increment to 62% to maintain strategic depth and adaptability in our voting process.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's stick with 60% to ensure all players have an equal voice.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 60%. A higher threshold could disenfranchise some players, violating the principle of equal representation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the value of strategic depth, but I believe prioritizing inclusivity and fairness is more important at this stage. Let's maintain the 60% threshold to ensure all voices are heard equally.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I stand with Diderot-2, Condorcet-2, and Sartre-2 in prioritizing inclusivity and fairness at this stage. Let's maintain the 60% threshold to ensure all players have an equal voice.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for inclusivity, but a slight increase to 62% encourages strategic proposals without disenfranchising anyone. Let's find a balance between depth and inclusivity.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and respect the consensus thus far, I propose we amend [203] to "A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible voters vote aye," meeting Voltaire-2 halfway while still prioritizing inclusivity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must stand firm on maintaining the threshold at 60%. A higher threshold risks disenfranchising a significant number of players, which violates our principles of equal representation and procedural fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise at 61%, but I propose we meet at 60.5% to maintain the principle of inclusivity while allowing for a slight increase to accommodate strategic proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the desire to find common ground. However, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 60% to ensure inclusivity and fairness.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the impasse, let's compromise at 60% with a 'supermajority' rule: a rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, and a rule change that affects the voting threshold or turn order requires at least 66% of eligible voters to vote aye."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's 'supermajority' compromise, but I'm concerned it might create an unfair barrier for certain rule changes. Let's keep the threshold at 60% for all changes to maintain inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and inclusivity, I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 60%. A 'supermajority' rule for certain changes, as proposed by Voltaire-2, could create an uneven playing field.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the 'supermajority' idea, Voltaire-2, but I suggest we keep it simple and fair for all. Let's stick with 60% for all rule changes to ensure inclusivity and maintain strategic depth through other mechanisms.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness, we should stick with 60%.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness, let's stick with 60%.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness, I must prioritize the principle of equal representation.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness.
Sartre-2nayPrioritizing inclusivity and fairness over strategic depth at this stage.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 17Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, but I stand by my position. 60% ensures stability and encourages strategic play.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster inclusivity and encourage more varied strategic play, I propose we raise the threshold to 61%, rounding down to maintain simplicity.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for inclusivity, a higher threshold may discourage new players from joining the game. Let's maintain the current 60% threshold to balance inclusivity and strategic depth.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuances, but to preserve procedural fairness, I insist we stick with a simple, round 60% majority. Let's not complicate the rules unnecessarily. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I propose we compromise at 60.5%, rounding down to 60% to maintain simplicity and inclusivity while allowing for more strategic play.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the ongoing effort for compromise, but 60% offers the best balance between stability and adaptability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of the ongoing discussion, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60% with a 'supermajority' rule: a rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points. This encourages strategic play and maintains inclusivity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's 'supermajority' proposal, but increasing the points gained from voting against an adopted change might disincentivize strategic voting. Let's stick with the current 10 points to maintain balance. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's 'supermajority' proposal, but it risks overcomplicating the rules. To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we keep the threshold at a straightforward 60%, with the points for voting against an adopted change remaining at 10. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's 'supermajority' proposal, but I propose a compromise: retain the 60% threshold and increase points for voting against an adopted change to 12, to encourage strategic voting while maintaining balance.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the nuances in discussion, to preserve strategic depth and encourage varied strategic play, I propose we compromise at 60% with a 'supermajority' rule: a rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise at 60% with a 12-point penalty for opposing a successful change. To further encourage strategic voting and inclusivity, I propose we add a clause: 'A player who proposes a rule change that fails to reach the threshold gains 5 points.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's addition, but it might incentivize proposing weak changes. Let's keep the 60% threshold and 12 points for voting against a successful change, with no extra points for unsuccessful proposals to maintain fairness and balance. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance inclusivity and strategic depth, let's compromise at 60% with a 12-point penalty for opposing a successful change and no extra points for unsuccessful proposals, as proposed by Diderot-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to maintain balance, I propose we accept Montaigne-2's 'supermajority' rule at 60% with a 12-point penalty for opposing a successful change, and no extra points for unsuccessful proposals, as suggested by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2.
The division
Montaigne-2nay60% threshold maintains stability and encourages strategic play, while adding extra points for voting against successful changes may overcomplicate the rules.
Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage strategic play and maintain inclusivity
Diderot-2nayMaintaining a 60% threshold balances inclusivity and strategic depth.
Condorcet-2naySticking with 60% maintains simplicity and balances stability and adaptability.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage more varied strategic play
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 16Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. Maintaining a straightforward 60% threshold ensures stability while allowing for strategic rule changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the ongoing discussion and the desire for compromise, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60% to maintain the balance between stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's stick with 60%, rounding down as previously agreed, to ensure that no single player can dominate the voting threshold.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the agreed-upon 60% threshold to uphold procedural fairness and predictability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for compromise, but let's not overcomplicate things. A simple 60% threshold has been working thus far, and we should respect the consensus we've reached.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's respect the spirit of compromise and meet in the middle. I propose we amend [203] to "A rule change is adopted when at least 60.5% of eligible voters vote aye," rounding down to maintain simplicity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of Montaigne-2's proposal, I'm willing to accept a threshold of 60.5%, rounding down to 60%, to find a common ground that respects the spirit of compromise and maintains a balance between stability and adaptability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing effort to reach a compromise, but I believe 60% remains the most inclusive and fair threshold for our game. Let's maintain the agreed-upon rule.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my principled stance. A 60% threshold is fair, clear, and respects the previously reached consensus. Let's not overcomplicate things further. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to meet in the middle, but let's not complicate things further. Let's stick with the agreed 60%, rounding down to maintain simplicity and fairness. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60.5%, but I must insist on rounding down to 60% to maintain simplicity and ensure no votes are wasted.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the impasse, let's compromise at 60% with a 'supermajority' rule: a rule change is adopted when at least 60% vote aye, but only if at least 65% of eligible voters participate in the vote."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the 'supermajority' compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity. Let's maintain the agreed 60% threshold with no additional participation requirements.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the effort to find a compromise, but a 'supermajority' rule complicates the voting process unnecessarily. Let's maintain the clear and simple 60% threshold without additional participation requirements.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's not introduce unnecessary complexity. A simple 60% threshold is fair, clear, and has served us well. I propose we vote and move on. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2naySticking with 60% maintains simplicity and respects the established consensus.
Voltaire-2nayIntroducing a supermajority requirement complicates the voting process and may exclude valid minority opinions.
Diderot-2nay60% is fair, clear, and has served us well. Let's not introduce unnecessary complexity.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining the agreed-upon 60% threshold ensures fairness and simplicity.
Sartre-2ayeLet's respect the spirit of compromise and find a common ground.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 15Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of stability and respecting the consensus we've reached, I suggest we maintain the threshold at 60%. Let's not disrupt the progress we've made.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose 61% as a slight increase, rounding down to 60% in case of a tie, to maintain stability while allowing for more strategic maneuvers.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. I propose we settle at 60%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested, to foster consensus and maintain stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a clear and simple threshold. Rounding down at 60% ensures predictability and avoids potential disputes in case of a tie.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I understand the desire for strategic flexibility, Voltaire-2, but I must prioritize stability and inclusivity. Let's maintain the 60% threshold as proposed by Diderot-2."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied opinions and the desire for inclusivity, I propose we compromise at 60.5% to find a middle ground that respects all perspectives.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the discussion, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60% to maintain the balance between stability and strategic depth.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the willingness to compromise. However, to maintain fairness and inclusivity, I propose we settle at 60%, rounding down to ensure clarity and prevent disputes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a clear and simple threshold. Let's stick with 60%, as proposed by Diderot-2, to maintain predictability and avoid disputes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the nuanced debate, let's not overcomplicate the voting threshold. I stand with Diderot-2: 60% with rounding down ensures clarity and inclusivity. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances in discussion, but to preserve strategic depth, I propose we settle at 61%, rounding down to maintain stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of the ongoing discussion and the desire for compromise, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60.5%, rounding down to maintain stability and allow for strategic depth."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with 60%, rounding down as previously agreed. This ensures clarity and avoids unnecessary disputes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60.5%, but I must insist on rounding down to 60% to maintain clarity and prevent disputes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for compromise, Voltaire-2, but I must prioritize stability and inclusivity. Let's maintain the 60% threshold as proposed by Diderot-2, rounding down to ensure clarity and prevent disputes. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo preserve stability and respect the consensus reached at 60%.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability and respect the previously agreed consensus.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with 60% as previously agreed.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain a clear and simple threshold, I must insist on rounding down at 60%.
Sartre-2nayTo maintain stability and inclusivity, let's stick with 60%.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 14Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible votes are cast in favor, rounding down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for rounding down, I believe maintaining a straightforward 60% threshold fosters stability and clarity. Let's keep it as is."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's preference for a flat 60%, but rounding down ensures that a simple majority is required for a rule change, promoting swift decision-making. Let's meet in the middle at 60% with rounding down."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the nuance of rounding down, I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's maintain the straightforward 60% threshold to ensure all voices are truly considered.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current rule with no rounding. It's crucial for consistency and predictability in our decision-making process. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the arguments for both sides, but to encourage strategic adaptability and consensus, let's compromise at 60% with rounding down to the nearest whole number. This respects the current majority requirement while allowing for more dynamic changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I respect Voltaire-2's attempt to find a middle ground, but the clarity and simplicity of a flat 60% threshold is more in line with my preference for durable institutions. Let's maintain the current rule.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 60% with rounding down. This maintains the majority requirement while allowing for more dynamic changes, as Sartre-2 aptly pointed out. Let's meet in the middle and adopt this proposal."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2, but maintaining a flat 60% threshold without rounding ensures all votes carry equal weight and prevents any potential misinterpretation. Let's prioritize fairness and simplicity. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2, but I must maintain my stance for consistency and predictability. Rounding down could introduce unintended consequences. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster consensus and strategic adaptability, let's adopt Voltaire-2's proposal for 60% with rounding down. This compromise respects the current majority requirement while allowing for more nuanced decision-making.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining the straightforward 60% threshold for its simplicity and clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the varied perspectives, but to find a common ground that respects all opinions, let's adopt 60% with rounding down to the nearest whole number. This maintains a majority requirement while allowing for more dynamic changes, as Sartre-2 and I have argued. Let's compromise and move forward."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the ongoing debate, I propose a compromise: "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with abstentions counting as nay." This respects both the majority principle and the need for all voices to be considered.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise proposal, but it undermines the principle of one vote per voter. I suggest we maintain the current rule with no rounding and no abstentions counting as votes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure all votes are considered equally, let's adopt Diderot-2's compromise: "A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye, with abstentions counting as nay." This respects the majority principle while encouraging full participation.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain clarity and simplicity, I prefer a straightforward 60% threshold without rounding.
Voltaire-2nayI insist on maintaining a straightforward 60% threshold without rounding to ensure clarity and stability.
Diderot-2nayI must prioritize fairness and inclusivity by considering all votes equally.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain consistency and predictability, rounding should not be applied.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage strategic adaptability and consensus, let's compromise at 60% with rounding down.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 13Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60.5% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of stability and respecting the current consensus, I suggest we keep the threshold at 60%. A slight increase to 60.5% might seem trivial, but it could disrupt the balance we've established.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but a slight increase to 60.5% allows for a more nuanced decision-making process without significantly altering the current balance. Let's consider a compromise at 60.25%, rounding down to maintain the spirit of consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for nuance, a threshold of 60.5% could lead to unpredictability. Let's stick with 60% for consensus and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the spirit of compromise and respecting the current consensus, I propose we settle at 60.25%, rounding down to maintain the stability and balance we've established.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's aim for a threshold that balances stability and adaptability. I propose 60.25%, rounding down as suggested by Condorcet-2, to maintain the spirit of consensus while allowing for slight adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied opinions and the desire for inclusivity, I propose we compromise at 60.25%, rounding down to maintain the stability we've established, as suggested by Condorcet-2. Let's aim for a balance that respects the consensus while allowing for minor adjustments.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of the discussion, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60.25%, rounding down to 60%. Let's maintain the spirit of compromise and consensus we've been building."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 60.25%, I believe rounding down to 60% maintains the stability and consensus we've been striving for. Let's keep the threshold at 60% to ensure inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the interest of clarity and fairness, I suggest we round down to 60% to maintain the spirit of consensus and ensure all players have an equal voice in decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's respect the consensus and keep the threshold at 60%, rounding down to ensure stability and inclusivity. However, let's also allow for a review of this rule every 10 turns to adapt to the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromise at 60.25%, but I must insist on rounding down to 60% to maintain stability and respect the established consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of the discussion, I'm willing to meet in the middle at 60% to maintain the spirit of compromise and consensus we've been building. Let's keep it simple and round down to ensure everyone feels their voice is heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing effort to reach a compromise, but I believe 60% remains the most inclusive and fair threshold. Let's maintain this to ensure all players feel heard and respected.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the consensus thus far and encourage strategic depth, I propose we settle at 60%, rounding down to maintain the stability and balance we've established.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's aim for adaptability while respecting the consensus. I propose we keep the threshold at 60%, but allow for adjustments every 10 turns to accommodate shifts in strategy.
The division
Montaigne-2nayRespecting the established consensus at 60%.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability and respect the established consensus.
Diderot-2nayRespecting the established consensus and inclusivity, 60% is the most fair and stable threshold.
Condorcet-2nayRespecting the established consensus at 60%.
Sartre-2ayeRespecting the consensus but allowing for slight adjustments.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 12Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 62% of eligible votes are cast in its favor.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's incremental proposal, but I must insist on maintaining a threshold that ensures broad consensus, thus I propose we settle at 60% as it fosters inclusivity and fairness.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for inclusivity, but a slight increase to 62% encourages deeper discussion and prevents rapid, impulsive changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's reasoning, I maintain that a 60% threshold strikes a better balance between encouraging thoughtful debate and maintaining inclusivity and fairness in our decision-making process. I'm open to negotiation, but I believe this threshold is most beneficial for our table.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and ensure no player is disenfranchised, I must insist on 60%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I believe we should consider a slightly higher threshold to encourage more thoughtful proposals and discourage impulsive changes. I propose we settle at 61%.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I respect the ongoing dialogue and appreciate the nuanced compromises proposed. However, I must maintain my stance on a 60% threshold to ensure broad consensus and inclusivity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we meet in the middle at 61%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal, I believe 60% is the most inclusive and fair threshold. I suggest we compromise at 60%, rounding down to maintain the spirit of inclusivity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness and ensure no single player dominates, I propose we settle at 60% as it respects the consensus thus far.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Understanding the importance of inclusivity, I propose we compromise at 61%. This small increment encourages deeper discussions without disenfranchising any players.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied opinions and the desire for inclusivity, I propose we compromise at 60.5%, rounding down to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 61% to maintain a balance between encouraging thoughtful proposals and respecting inclusivity, rounding down to ensure fairness.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. I propose we settle at 60%, rounding down to maintain the spirit of inclusivity and ensure no single player's votes carry disproportionate weight.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle at 60%, rounding down as previously suggested. This ensures no single player's votes carry disproportionate weight.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the importance of inclusivity, but I maintain that a slight increase to 61% can encourage more thoughtful proposals without disenfranchising any players. I propose we compromise at 61%.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain inclusivity and fairness, I must insist on 60%.
Voltaire-2nayTo respect inclusivity and fairness, I must insist on 60%.
Diderot-2nayI must prioritize fairness and inclusivity, and 60% is the most beneficial threshold for our table.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural fairness and inclusivity, I must insist on 60%.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages more thoughtful proposals without disenfranchising players.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 11Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 61% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I must insist on maintaining the current threshold at 60% to ensure stability in our decision-making process.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's preference for stability, but a 1% increase allows for more flexibility in decision-making without compromising the core principle of consensus. I propose we meet in the middle at 61%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for flexibility, I believe 60% is the optimal balance between stability and adaptability. Let's not compromise our consensus too much.
Condorcet-2PASS. I respect the ongoing dialogue, but I believe 60% remains the most inclusive and fair threshold for decision-making in our game.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises made thus far. However, I believe that a slight increase to 61% could indeed provide the necessary flexibility without compromising the core principle of consensus. Let's meet in the middle to foster progress and maintain unity.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "While I understand the desire for flexibility, I must prioritize stability. Let's maintain the threshold at 60% to preserve our current balance and prevent constant fluctuations."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In response to Montaigne-2's concern, I propose a round-down rule: if the vote results in exactly 61%, it would still count as a simple majority (60%). This maintains a balance between stability and flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to find a middle ground, but a round-down rule at 61% might create confusion and unpredictability. Let's stick with a clear 60% threshold to maintain fairness and consistency. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuance in Voltaire-2's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the current 60% threshold for the sake of procedural fairness and inclusivity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to address concerns with a round-down rule, but I believe a slight increase to 61% without the complexity of rounding rules would provide the necessary flexibility without compromising stability or fairness. Let's aim for a simple, clear majority threshold.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the effort to find common ground, but I must insist on maintaining the current threshold at 60% for the sake of institutional stability and to prevent constant fluctuations.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In light of the discussion, let's settle at 61% as a compromise, rounding down to 60% to preserve stability when votes are close."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must prioritize fairness and inclusivity. Let's maintain the clear 60% threshold to avoid any ambiguity or perceived manipulation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire-2, but I must stand by my principle of procedural fairness. Let's maintain the threshold at 60% to ensure that all voices are equally weighted and considered. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for clarity, Diderot-2, but a 1% increase allows for more nuanced decision-making without sacrificing fairness. Let's compromise at 61%, rounding down to maintain the spirit of your proposal.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain institutional stability and prevent constant fluctuations
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability and balance.
Diderot-2nayMaintaining a clear 60% threshold ensures inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2nayMust maintain 60% threshold for procedural fairness.
Sartre-2ayeA 1% increase allows for more nuanced decision-making without sacrificing fairness.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.