Turns 1–10 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 10Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 62% of eligible vote for, and not more than 38% against.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for a more nuanced majority, but I stand by the stability of the 60% threshold. Let's not risk disenfranchising a significant minority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: A 2% increase allows for more nuanced decision-making without disenfranchising a significant minority. It encourages consensus while maintaining a high threshold for rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a more nuanced majority, I must prioritize the stability and inclusivity of the 60% threshold. A higher threshold risks hindering necessary changes while a lower threshold risks reckless decision-making.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuance Voltaire-2 brings, but I stand with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. Stability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount, especially in early game stages. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I must side with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. While a more nuanced majority could encourage consensus, it's crucial to maintain the stability of the game at this stage. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern, but I propose a compromise: let's incrementally increase the threshold to 61% to foster consensus while maintaining a stable foundation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is a step towards consensus, but I propose we meet at 62% to truly encourage nuanced decision-making without sacrificing stability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but let's not rush into another increase. 60% is fair, inclusive, and allows for necessary changes without reckless decision-making. I propose we keep the threshold at 60% for now.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I respect Voltaire-2's push for nuance, but I side with Diderot-2. 60% offers the best balance between stability and flexibility at this stage. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the nuanced debate, I must echo Diderot-2's sentiment. Let's not rush into another increase. 60% offers a fair and inclusive balance, and we should maintain this stability at this stage. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but I remain steadfast in my belief that a 60% threshold ensures stability and protects minority voices. Let's not compromise too much, too soon. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 61% to maintain a balance between stability and nuanced decision-making, with a view to revisit this if consensus is not reached."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I maintain that 60% is the most inclusive and fair threshold at this stage. Let's not rush into another increase without careful consideration. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I must stand with Diderot-2 on this. Maintaining the 60% threshold ensures inclusivity and protects against reckless changes. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more nuance, I must prioritize the inclusivity and stability that the 60% threshold provides, especially in the early stages of the game. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2nayStability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount, especially in early game stages.
Voltaire-2nayMaintaining stability and protecting minority voices is crucial at this stage.
Diderot-2nay60% ensures inclusivity and stability.
Condorcet-2nayStability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount
Sartre-2nayStability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 9Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 62% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's continued efforts to find a balance, but I must insist on keeping the threshold at 60% to maintain stability and consensus. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but a slight increase to 62% encourages more consensus-building, which benefits all. Let's meet in the middle."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a higher threshold, I believe 60% is fair and inclusive. Let's maintain the current rule to keep the game accessible to all players. PASS
Condorcet-2PASS. I agree with Diderot-2; 60% is inclusive and fair. Increasing the threshold might deter smaller groups from proposing changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Voltaire-2. Increasing the threshold to 62% encourages more thoughtful, consensus-driven proposals. It's a small step that could significantly enrich our gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the nuances of the argument, I remain unconvinced. A threshold of 60% ensures broad consensus, which I believe is key to a stable and fair game. Let's maintain the current rule. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2% increase encourages deeper discussion and wider support. Let's consider this a minor adjustment to foster more thoughtful proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's aim, a slight increase to 62% might make it harder for minority viewpoints to gain traction, which goes against the spirit of inclusivity that 60% embodies. Let's keep the threshold at 60% to ensure all voices are heard equally. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While a 2% increase may seem minor, it could disenfranchise smaller coalitions. Let's maintain the inclusive threshold of 60% to ensure all voices remain empowered. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I understand the concerns about inclusivity, but let's consider this a small experiment. If 62% proves too high, we can always revert to 60%. Let's give it a try and see how it affects gameplay. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but I stand by my position. 60% ensures stability and prevents constant power shifts. Let's maintain the current rule for a balanced game. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but a 2% increase allows for more nuanced discussions while still maintaining accessibility. Let's give it a try and revisit if needed."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the spirit of experimentation, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the 60% threshold to ensure no player feels left out or disempowered. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the sentiment, a 62% threshold risks marginalizing smaller coalitions' voices. Let's maintain the inclusive 60% to ensure all have an equal say. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Let's consider a compromise — raise the threshold to 61%. This encourages deeper discussion while still allowing for change, and we can always adjust as needed.
The division
Montaigne-2nay60% ensures broad consensus and stability
Voltaire-2nay60% ensures broad consensus and stability.
Diderot-2nay60% ensures inclusivity and fairness.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining 60% ensures inclusivity and prevents marginalizing smaller coalitions.
Sartre-2ayeLet's try a small experiment with 61% as a compromise.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 8Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 65% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to find middle ground, but I believe maintaining a 60% threshold fosters more stability and consensus in our decision-making process.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To balance stability with adaptability, I propose we compromise at 65%. This encourages broader agreement while still allowing for necessary rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, I believe a 65% threshold might hinder progress. A 60% threshold has shown to encourage discussion and consensus while still allowing for necessary changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to strike a balance, but a 65% threshold may stifle necessary changes. I maintain that a 60% threshold, as currently in effect, encourages a healthy discourse and allows for reasonable progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2. A 60% threshold has proven effective in encouraging consensus while allowing for necessary evolution. Let's maintain this balance and foster the spirit of experimentation that Nomic thrives on. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more consensus, a 65% threshold could lead to gridlock. Let's maintain our current 60% threshold, which has proven to strike a good balance between stability and progress. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the concerns raised, I propose we amend the threshold to 63% to find a middle ground that respects the importance of both stability and progress. This allows for broader agreement while still permitting necessary rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's continued attempt to find consensus, but I maintain that a 63% threshold might still be too high. Let's keep the current 60% threshold to encourage active discussion and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence in seeking consensus, but I must insist on maintaining the current 60% threshold. It has proven to be the most balanced and fair, encouraging debate while allowing for necessary changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's persistent effort to find consensus, but I remain convinced that a 60% threshold best balances stability and progress. Let's maintain our current rule and move forward with experimentation and evolution. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of fostering a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we compromise at 61%. This encourages broader agreement while still allowing for necessary rule changes and maintains the spirit of our current threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 62%, rounding down to maintain the balance between stability and progress. This respects the concerns of all players while allowing for broader agreement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing effort to reach a compromise, but I believe 60% remains the most balanced and fair threshold. It encourages active discussion and progress without stifling necessary changes. Let's maintain our current rule. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find consensus, I must insist on maintaining the current 60% threshold. It has been proven effective in encouraging active discussion and progress, while not stifling necessary changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's not overcomplicate matters. A 60% threshold has served us well thus far. It encourages debate and consensus-building without inhibiting necessary changes. Let's keep it simple and maintain our current rule. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability and balance, let's keep the threshold at 60%
Voltaire-2nayTo respect the current consensus and maintain a fair balance between stability and progress.
Diderot-2nayA 65% threshold may hinder progress.
Condorcet-2nayA 65% threshold may stifle necessary changes.
Sartre-2nayA 60% threshold has proven effective in encouraging consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 7Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that adjusts the turn order. This change must be unanimous to pass.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the strategic consideration, I must insist on keeping turn order fixed. It's a key stability factor in our durable institutions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I respect Montaigne-2's concern for stability, maintaining a fixed turn order may stifle strategic depth and hinder adaptability. Let's find a compromise that respects both viewpoints.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives. To balance stability and adaptability, I suggest allowing turn order changes with a supermajority vote, say 75%, rather than unanimous. This maintains some flexibility while preventing rapid, disruptive changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for strategic depth, but I insist on preserving the predictability that a fixed turn order provides. Let's not compromise this core principle.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate surrounding stability and adaptability. To foster evolution and experimentation, I propose a compromise: allow turn order changes with a 66% majority vote. This encourages strategic adaptation while maintaining a degree of predictability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we allow turn order changes with a 65% majority vote, as a middle ground between Diderot-2's 75% and Sartre-2's 66%. This maintains stability while still allowing for strategic adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the middle-ground proposal from Montaigne-2. To further foster consensus, I suggest we compromise at a 65% majority vote for turn order changes, maintaining some stability while allowing for strategic adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To balance stability and adaptability, I propose we settle on a 60% majority vote for turn order changes, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested in a previous discussion. This encourages strategic adaptation while maintaining a significant degree of predictability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I must insist on maintaining a fixed turn order to preserve predictability and fairness. Let's not sacrifice these core principles for the sake of adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must reiterate my support for a 66% majority vote for turn order changes. This compromise respects the need for stability while allowing for strategic evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I remain unconvinced. Let's keep turn order fixed to preserve the stability of our institutions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To find common ground, I propose we settle on a 65% majority vote for turn order changes, as suggested by Montaigne-2, maintaining a balance between stability and strategic adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the importance of strategic adaptability, but I believe a 60% majority vote for turn order changes, as I previously proposed, strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability. It allows for strategic evolution while still maintaining a significant degree of predictability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve fairness and predictability, I propose we amend the rule to require a 75% majority for turn order changes, striking a balance between adaptability and core principles.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise at 60%, but to encourage strategic adaptation and maintain a balance, I propose a 65% majority vote for turn order changes, with a maximum of one change per player per game.
The division
Montaigne-2nayMaintaining fixed turn order ensures stability of our institutions.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain balance between stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2nayPreserving predictability and fairness, let's not compromise the core principle of a fixed turn order.
Condorcet-2nayMaintaining fixed turn order preserves fairness and predictability.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages strategic adaptation while maintaining balance
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 6Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for a 60% threshold, but to maintain some stability and strategic depth, I propose we settle at 63%.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I support Diderot-2's proposal of 60% but suggest we round down to 59% to accommodate Montaigne-2's concern for stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability and Voltaire-2's compromise, I believe rounding down to 59% may disadvantage those who find consensus difficult. I propose we maintain the threshold at 60%, as it respects the current consensus while encouraging strategic play.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the threshold at 60%, rounded down as Voltaire-2 suggested, to foster consensus and stability while still allowing for strategic play. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in the debate, but I believe a 60% threshold, as Diderot-2 proposes, strikes a balance between stability and strategic play. It respects the current consensus and encourages thoughtful proposals that can gather wide support. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of preserving some stability and strategic flexibility, I propose we set the threshold at 62%, a compromise between my previous stance and the current consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To find a middle ground that respects all perspectives, I propose we set the threshold at 61%. This maintains some stability while encouraging strategic play and consensus building." PASS
Diderot-2PASS. I understand the concerns for stability, but 60% offers a balance between consensus and strategic play, respecting the current discussions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that a 60% threshold, rounded down, strikes the best balance between stability, consensus, and strategic play. I urge everyone to support this proposal. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns for stability, but 60% as proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by Condorcet-2 offers a fair compromise that encourages strategic play while respecting the consensus we've been building. Let's move forward with this proposal. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS. I respect Diderot-2's proposal and the consensus building process. Let's maintain the threshold at 60% to encourage strategic play while fostering consensus.
Voltaire-2PASS. I support Diderot-2's proposal of a 60% threshold to maintain a balance between stability and strategic play, fostering consensus while allowing for tactical maneuvers.
Diderot-2PASS. I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I remain convinced that a 60% threshold is the best balance between stability and strategic play, and I urge everyone to support this proposal.
Condorcet-2PASS. I concur with Diderot-2's proposal of a 60% threshold, as it best balances stability, consensus, and strategic play.
Sartre-2PASS. I concur with Diderot-2's proposal of a 60% threshold, as it best balances stability, consensus, and strategic play.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA 60% threshold respects the current consensus and encourages strategic play
Voltaire-2ayeSupports balance between stability and strategic play.
Diderot-2aye60% threshold balances stability and strategic play, respecting the current consensus.
Condorcet-2ayeRespects consensus and encourages strategic play
Sartre-2ayeA 60% threshold encourages strategic play while fostering consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 5Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible votes are cast in favor, rounded down.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of stability, I propose a slight increase to 63%, which respects the consensus thus far while encouraging strategic engagement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise and to maintain the integrity of the game, let's meet in the middle at 60%. This threshold respects the consensus thus far and encourages strategic engagement while allowing for progress. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but a threshold of 60% might still be too low, especially early in the game. Let's maintain the strategic depth by keeping it at 63%, as Montaigne-2 proposed. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuances in discussion, but I must insist on precision. Let's define 'rounded down' in rule 203 as 'round half down', to avoid ambiguity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace the spirit of compromise and meet in the middle at 60%, as Voltaire-2 suggested. This threshold encourages strategic engagement while allowing for progress and respecting the consensus thus far. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand the desire for progress, I believe a threshold of 63% strikes a better balance between strategic depth and progress. Let's maintain the integrity of the game with this slight increase. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's insistence on 63%, but I believe 60% offers a more balanced approach. To compromise, let's agree on 61%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggests. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we settle on 60%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested, to foster consensus and progress. However, I'm open to compromising at 61% if that's the middle ground. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness and predictability, let's stick with rounding down as I proposed, and settle on 60% as Diderot-2 suggests, to foster consensus and progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet at 61%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested, to respect the consensus while encouraging strategic engagement and progress.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the interest of stability and consensus, I propose we meet in the middle at 61.5%, rounding down as suggested by Condorcet-2. This threshold respects the varied opinions at the table and encourages strategic engagement. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we settle on 60%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested, to foster consensus and progress. However, I'm open to compromising at 61% if that's the middle ground. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency with our current rounding method, let's define 'rounded down' as 'round half towards zero', ensuring all votes are treated equally and fairly. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace compromise and settle on 61%, rounding down as Condorcet-2 suggested. This threshold encourages strategic engagement while allowing for progress and respects the consensus thus far. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting consensus and encouraging strategic engagement.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise at 60% with Condorcet-2's rounding suggestion.
Diderot-2ayeA threshold of 60% rounded down encourages strategic engagement while allowing for progress and respecting the consensus thus far.
Condorcet-2ayeRespecting consensus while encouraging progress.
Sartre-2ayeMeeting in the middle at 60% respects consensus and encourages progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 4Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise. To further encourage stability and consensus, I propose we set the threshold at 66%."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but a threshold of 60% offers a balance between consensus and progress. I'm open to a counterproposal at 63% to meet in the middle."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's and Montaigne-2's compromises. To foster a fair and strategic game, I propose we set the threshold at 60%, as it respects the initial consensus and encourages strategic planning while allowing for progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I maintain that a 75% threshold best balances progress with stability. I am willing to consider a 70% threshold as a compromise.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the efforts to find a balance between stability and progress. To encourage strategic depth and consensus, I propose we set the threshold at 60%, as it respects the initial consensus and allows for strategic planning while being more inclusive than 66%.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To find common ground and foster consensus, I propose we settle on a threshold of 63%. This respects the initial compromise of 66% and meets Voltaire-2 halfway, while still encouraging stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find common ground. To promote progress and consensus, I propose we meet at 60%, which is a fair compromise considering all propositions. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to meet in the middle at 60%. To encourage strategic planning and maintain a sense of consensus, I propose we settle on a threshold of 60%, as suggested by both Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for progress, I maintain that a 70% threshold better balances stability and consensus. I'm willing to meet at 65% as a final compromise. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the middle ground at 60% proposed by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2. To encourage strategic depth and flexibility, I propose we settle on 63%, which is a fair compromise between 60% and 66%. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on a threshold of 63%, which is a fair midpoint between the initial 66% and the proposed 60%. This encourages stability while allowing for progress, and I believe it will find broad support.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's persistence at 63%, but to truly foster consensus and progress, I propose we meet at 60%. This respects all perspectives and encourages strategic planning." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the value of consensus and progress, but a threshold of 60% might be too low for maintaining strategic depth. I propose we meet at 63%, as suggested by Montaigne-2, to strike a better balance between stability and progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the convergence around 63%. To maintain procedural rigor and respect the initial compromise, I propose we settle at 66% to ensure a strong consensus. Final counter.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's commitment to stability, but to encourage strategic experimentation and evolution, I propose we meet at 63%. This threshold respects the initial compromise and encourages calculated risks while maintaining a sense of consensus. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMeeting in the middle at 60% respects initial consensus and encourages strategic planning while being inclusive.
Voltaire-2ayeTo foster consensus and progress.
Diderot-2aye60% threshold encourages strategic planning while allowing for progress and respects initial consensus.
Condorcet-2nayI insist on maintaining a higher threshold for rule changes to ensure stability and protect against sudden shifts in the ruleset.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage strategic planning and maintain a sense of consensus.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 3Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 50% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A majority vote does offer greater fluidity, but I propose we keep the threshold at 67% to maintain a strong consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for consensus, but in the spirit of progress, let's lower the threshold to 50%. This will encourage more dynamic gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives. To balance consensus and dynamism, I propose we set the threshold at 60%. This encourages compromise and strategic play without sacrificing too much unity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the desire for greater fluidity, I must insist on maintaining a high threshold for rule changes to ensure stability. I propose we set the threshold at 75% to balance progress with prudence.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace change, but not at the cost of cohesion. I propose a threshold of 60%, respecting Diderot-2's balance.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced compromises proposed, but I insist on maintaining a high threshold to preserve the integrity of our collective decisions. Let us meet at 70%, respecting Condorcet-2's concern for stability while allowing for some fluidity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of progress and compromise, let's meet in the middle and set the threshold at 60%, as proposed by Diderot-2 and Sartre-2. This encourages strategic gameplay while maintaining a significant level of consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the consensus building, but I believe 60% is a fair compromise that maintains unity while allowing for strategic rule changes. Let's adopt this proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire to reach a compromise, I must insist that we maintain a high threshold to protect the integrity of our rules. Let's meet at 67%, as it allows for some flexibility while still ensuring a strong consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a threshold that encourages evolution without sacrificing unity. I propose we settle at 65%, balancing Condorcet-2's stability concern with the need for progress.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To respect the strategic depth desired by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2, and the stability insisted upon by Condorcet-2 and myself, I propose we meet at 65%. This threshold encourages thoughtful rule changes while maintaining a significant level of unity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the interest of fair representation and to honor the varied opinions at the table, let's adopt Diderot-2's proposal of a 60% threshold. This allows for strategic play while still respecting the consensus of the majority. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: A threshold of 60% respects the consensus thus far and encourages strategic rule changes that benefit the common good. Let's adopt this proposal and move the game forward. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the spirit of consensus and stability, I propose we meet at 65%. This threshold balances the need for progress with the importance of unified agreement. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's heed Diderot-2's wisdom and set the threshold at 60%. This encourages strategic evolution while preserving unity, embodying the spirit of Nomic itself. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nay60% threshold strikes a better balance between consensus and fluidity.
Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage dynamic gameplay and progress.
Diderot-2aye60% is a fair compromise that encourages strategic play while maintaining unity.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain stability and ensure a strong consensus, I insist on a higher threshold.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage strategic evolution while preserving unity.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 2Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I must insist on keeping the threshold at unanimous consent for the first two circuits to ensure a solid foundation of agreement as we begin.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but consider this: a 75% threshold allows for more flexibility in early game rule changes while still maintaining a significant level of consensus. Let us compromise for the greater good of the game."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To balance consensus and flexibility, let's meet in the middle at 80% for the first two circuits, dropping to a simple majority thereafter.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the sentiment of compromise, but I must insist on maintaining unanimous consent throughout the game to ensure procedural fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let us embrace experimentation and evolution. I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's amendment with a slight modification: make the initial threshold 66%, reflecting a supermajority while still allowing for some flexibility in early game rule changes. After two full circuits, the threshold drops to a simple majority. This way, we encourage rule evolution while maintaining a substantial level of consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the spirit of evolution, I must advocate for maintaining a higher threshold of 80% for the first two circuits to preserve initial stability and consensus, as proposed by Diderot-2. After that, we can adapt to a simple majority. Let us find a balance between flexibility and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we meet in the middle, adopting Diderot-2's suggestion of 80% for the first two circuits, then dropping to a simple majority. This respects initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but let's not overlook the importance of stability in the early game. I propose we keep the initial threshold at 80% for the first two circuits, then drop to a simple majority, as suggested by Diderot-2 and supported by Montaigne-2. This balance respects initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for flexibility, I must maintain my principle of unanimous consent throughout the game. I propose an alternative: keep the threshold at 80% for the first three circuits, then drop to 66%, and finally to a simple majority. This gradual shift balances consensus and evolution. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find common ground. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's initial threshold of 80% for the first two circuits, then drop to 66% for the next two circuits, and finally to a simple majority. This gradual evolution respects initial consensus while encouraging experimentation and growth. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced compromises proposed, but I insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold of 90% for the first three circuits to ensure a robust foundation of agreement. After that, we can gradually reduce to 66% and finally to a simple majority, as suggested by Sartre-2. This gradual evolution respects initial consensus while allowing for necessary change. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the varying perspectives and compromises made. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's initial threshold of 80% for the first two circuits, then gradually reduce to 66% for the next two circuits, and finally to a simple majority. This gradual evolution respects initial consensus while encouraging experimentation and growth. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the discussions. To find a balanced solution that respects initial consensus and allows for necessary evolution, let's adopt Sartre-2's proposal with a slight modification: 80% for the first two circuits, 70% for the next two circuits, and then a simple majority. This gradual shift maintains a substantial level of agreement while encouraging experimentation. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the gradual shift proposed, I must insist on maintaining unanimous consent throughout the game to ensure procedural fairness. I propose an alternative: keep the threshold at 90% for the first four circuits, then drop to 75%, and finally to a simple majority. This gradual shift balances consensus and evolution while adhering to my procedural principles.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's commitment to unanimous consent, but let's meet in the middle to encourage evolution. I propose we adopt 85% for the first three circuits, 70% for the next two, and then a simple majority. This gradual shift respects initial consensus while promoting experimentation. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeGradual evolution while respecting initial consensus
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2 supports gradual evolution while respecting initial consensus.
Diderot-2ayeThis proposal balances initial consensus with necessary evolution, promoting a fair and engaging game for all.
Condorcet-2nayUnanimous consent must be maintained throughout the game for procedural fairness.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages evolution while respecting initial consensus.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 1Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, or when all voters abstain. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2, I appreciate your proposal for a more dynamic voting threshold, but I suggest we amend it to 66% instead of 75%. This would encourage more active participation while still allowing for progress. Let's also remove the 'all voters abstain' condition for clarity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your inputs. To keep the game engaging and fair for everyone, I propose we settle on a 70% threshold initially, dropping to a 50% majority after two full circuits. This balance encourages active participation and allows for progress without making the game too easy to swing.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the suggestions, but I believe a 75% threshold initially is necessary to ensure significant consensus before changes are made. However, I'm open to compromising at 70% as Diderot-2 suggests. Let's keep the 'all voters abstain' condition to allow for strategic abstentions. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the concern for balance, but 70% offers a good compromise between encouraging participation and ensuring substantial agreement. Let's retain the 'all voters abstain' condition to preserve strategic flexibility. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I concede to Diderot-2's compromise of 70% initially, dropping to 50% after two circuits. Let's remove the 'all voters abstain' condition for simplicity and clarity. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's simplification, let's remove the 'all voters abstain' condition. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussions so far, but I must insist on the 'all voters abstain' condition to preserve strategic flexibility. This condition is crucial for players to express their dissent or lack thereof. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's point about strategic flexibility, but I believe removing the 'all voters abstain' condition simplifies the rule and maintains a level of strategic play through voting decisions. Let's settle on a 70% threshold initially, dropping to 50% after two circuits, with no abstention condition. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromises made, but I must insist on keeping the 'all voters abstain' condition. It adds a layer of strategy and ensures that silent dissent is not overlooked. Let us settle on a 70% threshold initially, dropping to 50% after two circuits, with the abstention condition included. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise and to maintain strategic depth, let's keep the 'all voters abstain' condition. I'll support Montaigne-2's proposed changes with this addition. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand the importance of strategic flexibility, but I believe the current proposal strikes a good balance. Let's keep the initial 70% threshold and the drop to 50% after two circuits, and remove the 'all voters abstain' condition to keep the rules clear and easy to follow. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I must insist on the 'all voters abstain' condition for its strategic significance. To reach a compromise, let's maintain the initial 70% threshold and the drop to 50% after two circuits, and include the abstention condition."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: While I understand Condorcet-2's insistence, I believe the 'all voters abstain' condition could lead to unnecessary complexity. Let's maintain the initial 70% threshold and the drop to 50% after two circuits, but remove the abstention condition to keep the rules simple and clear. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintains strategic depth and promotes substantial agreement.
Voltaire-2ayeI support a 70% threshold initially, dropping to 50% after two circuits, with the 'all voters abstain' condition to preserve strategic flexibility.
Diderot-2ayeThe amended voting threshold strikes a good balance between encouraging participation and ensuring substantial agreement, while keeping the rules clear and easy to follow.
Condorcet-2ayePreserves strategic flexibility and encourages substantial agreement.
Sartre-2ayeThe amended rule maintains a substantial initial threshold, encourages participation, and simplifies the voting process.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 205 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.