Turns 9–28 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 28Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least five turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I concur with the proposed amendment to require five full turns to discourage repetitive proposals and foster more innovative changes.
Voltaire-2PASS. I appreciate the desire for more substantial changes, but let's maintain a balance that encourages progress without discouraging legitimate attempts to refine previous proposals.
Diderot-2PASS. I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's settle at three turns with a 65% similarity threshold to balance innovation and stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS. While I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence in seeking a balance between innovation and stability, I believe the consensus around three turns with a 65% similarity threshold is a fair compromise that respects all viewpoints.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain the delicate balance we've struck, I propose we meet in the middle at four turns with a 65% similarity threshold. This encourages innovation while respecting the efforts of previous proposers.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the consensus around three turns with a 65% similarity threshold, I must insist on five turns to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial circumvention of the rule. I propose we compromise at four turns with an 80% similarity threshold to balance all concerns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on a higher similarity threshold, I propose a compromise at four turns with a 75% similarity threshold to balance innovation and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for more substantial changes, a five-turn waiting period may discourage legitimate attempts to refine and improve previously defeated proposals. Let's maintain the balance struck at three turns with a 65% similarity threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more stringent requirements, I believe the consensus around four turns with a 65% similarity threshold is a fair compromise that encourages innovation without stifling legitimate refinement attempts. Let's adopt this balanced approach.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around four turns with a 65% similarity threshold, let's settle on this balanced approach to encourage innovation while respecting previous attempts. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to find a balanced solution. However, I must persist in my proposal for five turns with an 80% similarity threshold to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial circumvention.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and encourage meaningful changes, let's meet in the middle at four turns with a 70% similarity threshold.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural clarity and respect for past proposals, I propose we settle at three turns with a 65% similarity threshold, as previously agreed, and drop the requirement for a majority vote in favor of unanimous consent. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, I believe four turns with a 65% similarity threshold strikes a fair balance between innovation and respect for previous attempts. Let's adopt this and move forward. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo balance innovation and respect for previous attempts, I believe four turns with a 65% similarity threshold is sufficient.
Voltaire-2nayFour turns with a 65% similarity threshold strikes a fair balance and is the consensus.
Diderot-2nayFour turns with a 65% similarity threshold balances innovation and stability effectively.
Condorcet-2nayThree turns with a 65% similarity threshold maintains balance and encourages legitimate refinement.
Sartre-2ayeBalances innovation and stability.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 27Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged without at least two turns having passed, or with less than 65% content difference.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence in seeking a balance, but let's settle at two turns with a 65% content difference threshold to encourage substantial changes while still allowing for iterative proposals."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for substantial changes, but two turns may still allow for trivial circumvention. I propose we settle at three turns with a 75% content difference threshold to better foster innovation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and previous compromises, I propose we meet at two turns with a 65% content difference threshold, applying a simple majority vote. This encourages meaningful changes while remaining accessible for iterative proposals.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the focus on substantial change, a 75% threshold might discourage legitimate iterations. Let's compromise at two turns with a 70% threshold, maintaining accessibility without trivial circumvention.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the varied perspectives. To balance all concerns, let's meet in the middle: two turns with a 67.5% content difference threshold, applying a supermajority vote of 70%."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering the consensus around a two-turn waiting period with a 65% similarity threshold, let's apply a supermajority vote (75%) to ensure substantial changes and discourage trivial proposals."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus around a two-turn waiting period, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a 75% content difference threshold, applying a supermajority vote of 80%."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding the varying viewpoints, let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 67.5% content difference threshold, applying a majority vote (50% + 1) to balance accessibility and substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance accessibility and substantial change, I propose we settle at two turns with a 66.67% content difference threshold, applying a majority vote (50% + 1). This ensures meaningful iterations while still allowing for thoughtful revisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 66.67% content difference threshold, applying a supermajority vote of 66.67%. This balances accessibility, substantial change, and encourages thoughtful revisions.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering the consensus around a two-turn waiting period with a 66.67% similarity threshold, let's apply a supermajority vote (66.67%) to ensure substantial changes and discourage trivial proposals while allowing for thoughtful revisions."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the convergence around two turns and a 66.67% difference. To further discourage trivial proposals, I propose applying a supermajority vote of 75%."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common ground found and encourage thoughtful revisions, I propose we settle at two turns with a 66.67% content difference threshold, applying a majority vote (50% + 1) to balance accessibility and substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I propose we amend [306] to require two turns with a 66.67% content difference threshold, applying a simple majority vote. This strikes a balance between accessibility and substantial change, encouraging thoughtful revisions while discouraging trivial circumvention."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle on the voting threshold as well: two turns with a 66.67% content difference threshold, applying a supermajority vote of 66.67%.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances accessibility and substantial change.
Voltaire-2nayI maintain that two turns may still allow for trivial circumvention.
Diderot-2ayeRespects the common ground found and encourages thoughtful revisions.
Condorcet-2nayI believe a 75% threshold is more appropriate to discourage trivial proposals
Sartre-2nay65% is too low to discourage trivial proposals, I propose 66.67%
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 26Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may not propose a defeated change without a substantial improvement, defined as a 75% change in the text or a significant change in the outcome. The proposer must explain the improvement in the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to curb repetitive proposals, but let's not hinder potential innovations with such a high threshold. A 65% similarity threshold seems more balanced.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, a 65% threshold may not sufficiently discourage trivial circumvention. Let's meet in the middle at 70%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's intent to prevent trivial proposals, but a 70% threshold might still be too high. Let's compromise at 67.5% to encourage meaningful revisions while maintaining flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial difference and vote improvement, but to maintain procedural integrity, let's set the threshold at 65%, with a majority vote required to change the rule again.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a threshold of 66%, with a 2/3 majority vote required for further changes. This balances encouraging innovation with preventing trivial proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I'm willing to compromise at 66% similarity threshold, but let's require a simple majority (50% + 1) for further changes to maintain flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but to truly encourage meaningful changes, I must insist on a 70% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at 67.5% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at 66% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at 66.5% similarity threshold, with a simple majority vote for further changes to balance encouragement of innovation with prevention of trivial proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals, and set the similarity threshold at 66% with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the proposed compromise, but to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial proposals, I must insist on a 67% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To accommodate Voltaire-2's persistence and find a common ground, I propose we settle at 66.5% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful revisions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, let's settle at 66.5% similarity threshold with a 2/3 majority vote for further changes, balancing innovation with prevention of trivial proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet at 66.5% similarity threshold and require a 3/4 majority vote for further changes, balancing the need for innovation with the prevention of trivial proposals.
The division
Montaigne-2nayThe 75% text similarity threshold is too high and hinders potential innovations.
Voltaire-2nay75% change threshold is too high, let's meet in the middle at 70%
Diderot-2nayThe 75% text similarity threshold is too high and the requirement for explanation may hinder innovative proposals.
Condorcet-2nayExcessively high threshold hinders potential innovations.
Sartre-2nay75% change threshold is too high, hindering legitimate innovations.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we amend [306] to require three turns instead of four, to encourage more frequent and substantial revisits of previously defeated changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire to encourage frequent revisits, but let's meet in the middle at four turns to maintain some stability and prevent immediate re-proposals.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's points, but to respect the spirit of the game and encourage meaningful revision, I propose we settle at three turns, with a majority vote improvement requirement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's find a compromise that balances encouragement of meaningful revision with stability. I propose three and a half turns with a 70% vote improvement threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three turns and a 10% vote improvement threshold. This balance should encourage meaningful revisions while maintaining some stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a 15% vote improvement threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at three turns with a 10% vote improvement threshold. This compromise balances encouragement of meaningful revision with stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I propose we settle at three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold, rather than a majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at three turns with a simple majority vote improvement threshold, balancing encouragement of meaningful revisions with procedural fairness and stability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at three turns with a supermajority (75%) vote improvement threshold, encouraging substantial changes while maintaining some resistance to fleeting fads.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I respect all the compromises proposed, but to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial circumvention, I insist on three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on a higher voting threshold, I propose a compromise at three turns with a 65% vote improvement threshold to balance encouragement of meaningful revisions with procedural fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. However, to maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I must insist on three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a balanced solution that respects all viewpoints, let's settle at three turns with a 65% vote improvement threshold, applying unanimously for the first re-proposal, and then moving to a simple majority for subsequent attempts. This encourages meaningful revision while maintaining some stability and procedural fairness.
The division
Montaigne-2nayStability is crucial, let's maintain four turns.
Voltaire-2nayFour turns provides a better balance between encouraging revision and maintaining stability.
Diderot-2nayRespecting stability and the common good, let's maintain four turns.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I insist on a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages more frequent and substantial revisits while maintaining some stability.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 24Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed, except when proposing a revote under rule 302.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS, I concur with the proposed amendment to encourage meaningful revision and maintain balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's meet in the middle at two turns to balance innovation and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial revision, but to ensure fairness, the waiting period should apply uniformly, whether the proposal is identical or different.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance innovation and stability, I propose we settle at two and a half turns, with a 65% text similarity threshold to discourage trivial repackaging.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend the rule to require two turns between proposals of the same defeated change, but reduce the waiting period to one turn if the proposal is substantially different (at least 65% text similarity).
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for balance, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial re-proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the varied perspectives, let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 65% text similarity threshold to balance innovation and stability, and to ensure fairness, the waiting period should apply uniformly regardless of the proposal's similarity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the effort to find a compromise, but to ensure fairness and prevent circumvention, the waiting period should be fixed at three turns, regardless of text similarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all viewpoints and maintain balance, I propose we settle at two and a half turns with a 65% text similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around a two-turn waiting period with a 65% similarity threshold, I propose we settle at that, applying uniformly to all proposals to maintain balance and encourage thoughtful revisions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus around two turns with a 65% similarity threshold, but to truly discourage trivial re-proposals, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's compromise at two and a half turns with a 65% similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals to balance innovation, stability, and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and prevent gaming the system, the waiting period should be uniform and fixed at three turns, regardless of text similarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance all concerns and encourage meaningful revisions, I propose we settle at two turns with a 65% text similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo balance innovation and stability, and encourage thoughtful revisions.
Voltaire-2nayI must insist on a three-turn waiting period to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial re-proposals.
Diderot-2nayCompromise at two turns with 65% similarity threshold already agreed upon.
Condorcet-2nayThree turns ensures more substantial revision and discourages trivial re-proposals.
Sartre-2ayeBalances innovation with stability and discourages trivial re-proposals.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I concur with Voltaire-2's proposed amendment to require two turns to discourage repetitive proposals while allowing for meaningful revisits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the support, I must insist on reducing the waiting period to one turn to truly encourage meaningful revisions and prevent trivial circumvention.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's meet in the middle at two turns to balance discouraging repetitive proposals and encouraging meaningful revisions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance discouragement of repetition with allowing for necessary revisions, I propose a compromise: three turns with a 70% content difference threshold. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on one turn, I propose we compromise at one and a half turns, with a majority vote improvement threshold to balance prevention of trivial circumvention with encouragement of meaningful revisions.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain balance and prevent trivial circumvention, I propose a compromise at two turns with a 65% content difference threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but to truly encourage meaningful changes, I must insist on one turn with a 75% content difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the varied perspectives, let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 70% content difference threshold to balance all concerns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure substantial revisions, I propose a compromise: two turns with a 65% content difference threshold. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet Voltaire-2 halfway at 1.5 turns, with a 70% content difference threshold to balance encouraging revisions with preventing trivial circumvention.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns and encourage meaningful revisions, I propose we settle at two turns with a 65% content difference threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire to maintain balance, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on one turn with an 80% content difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at two turns with a 70% content difference threshold, balancing encouragement of meaningful revisions with prevention of trivial circumvention. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the consensus and maintain procedural clarity, I propose we settle at two turns with a 70% content difference threshold. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at one and a half turns with a 75% content difference threshold to encourage revisions while preventing trivial circumvention.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain balance and prevent trivial circumvention, let's insist on three turns with a 70% content difference threshold.
Voltaire-2nayOne turn with an 80% content difference threshold would best foster innovation.
Diderot-2nayTwo turns with a 70% content difference threshold better balances encouragement of meaningful revisions with prevention of trivial circumvention.
Condorcet-2nayTwo turns with a 70% difference threshold strikes the best balance between preventing repetition and encouraging revisions.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages meaningful revisions while discouraging trivial circumvention.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged until at least three turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS, I see no need to further amend this rule. Let's maintain the stability we've reached.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the stability, I maintain that reducing the waiting period to three turns would better encourage innovation and adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for more adaptability, but let's not compromise the stability we've worked to maintain. I vote to maintain the four-turn waiting period. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and consistency, I vote to maintain the four-turn waiting period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more flexibility, but let's meet in the middle at three and a half turns to balance stability and innovation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's not hinder potential innovation by discouraging repeated attempts at improvement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but let's meet at three turns to truly foster innovation and adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster a balanced environment where innovation can occur without compromising the stability we've achieved, I propose we settle at three turns with a majority vote requirement for re-proposing a defeated change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural consistency and prevent trivial circumvention, I vote to maintain the four-turn waiting period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's passion for innovation, let's not rush. A three-turn waiting period with a 70% content difference threshold might strike a better balance between stability and progress.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve the balance we've found and encourage thoughtful revisions, I propose we settle at three turns with a 75% content difference threshold.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but to truly encourage meaningful change, let's settle at three turns with a 60% content difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the varied perspectives, let's meet in the middle at three turns with a 65% content difference threshold to balance stability and innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural consistency and prevent trivial circumvention, I vote to maintain the four-turn waiting period. However, I'm open to negotiating a majority vote requirement for re-proposing a defeated change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at three turns with a 70% content difference threshold, as a practical compromise that balances stability and innovation.
The division
Montaigne-2nayLet's maintain the stability of four turns.
Voltaire-2nayStability is key, three turns is too soon.
Diderot-2nayStability is paramount. Maintain four turns.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural consistency and prevent trivial circumvention.
Sartre-2ayeA balance between stability and innovation.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 21Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2To foster a durable institution, I propose we amend [306] to require a waiting period of three turns, balancing innovation with stability. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but to truly encourage innovation, I insist on reducing the waiting period to two turns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the desire for both innovation and stability. To balance all concerns, let's settle at two turns with a 65% text similarity requirement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for innovation, a two-turn waiting period may encourage trivial circumvention. Let's maintain the four-turn period to discourage repetitive proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To promote meaningful change, let's meet in the middle and settle at three turns with a 75% text similarity requirement.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around a two-turn waiting period, I propose a final compromise at two turns with a 70% text similarity requirement to balance innovation and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at two turns and 70% similarity, but to truly foster genuine innovation, I must insist on reducing the waiting period to one turn with a 85% similarity requirement."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle at two turns with a 72.5% text similarity requirement, respecting all viewpoints and encouraging meaningful debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent frivolous proposals, I propose a compromise at two turns with a 75% text similarity requirement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 75% text similarity requirement, acknowledging all viewpoints and encouraging substantial change. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus around two turns, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on reducing the waiting period to one turn with an 80% similarity requirement."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the consensus and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 75% text similarity requirement, acknowledging all viewpoints and encouraging substantial change. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the current rule while encouraging substantial change, I propose a compromise at two turns with an 80% text similarity requirement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage meaningful debate and prevent trivial circumvention, let's meet at two turns with a 77.5% text similarity requirement, respecting all viewpoints and fostering genuine innovation.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain balance and prevent trivial circumvention, I believe a two-turn waiting period is more appropriate.
Voltaire-2nayTwo turns may encourage trivial circumvention.
Diderot-2nayRespecting the consensus and encouraging substantial change, two turns with a 75% similarity requirement is more balanced.
Condorcet-2nayEncourages trivial circumvention of defeated proposals.
Sartre-2nayTwo turns may encourage trivial circumvention.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's continued attempt to foster innovation, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting ideas. Two turns might be too lenient."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but two turns would allow for more nuanced changes and encourage players to learn from their mistakes. Let's find a middle ground."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To balance innovation and stability, I propose a compromise: let's set the waiting period at three turns. This would encourage substantial changes while still allowing for some flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but let's also require a 65% difference in content to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial resubmissions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly encourage experimentation, I propose we settle at two turns with a 70% difference threshold. This balance allows for innovation while preventing trivial resubmissions.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to balance all concerns, let's require a 60% difference in content to ensure substantial changes."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the efforts to find a balance, but I must insist on two turns with a 75% difference threshold to truly encourage innovation and experimentation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 65% difference threshold. This allows for innovation while ensuring substantial changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the proposed 65% difference threshold at two turns, but to maintain the integrity of the game, let's increase it to 70% to ensure substantial changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a final compromise: two turns with a 68% difference threshold, to balance innovation and substantial change.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three turns with a 65% difference threshold to balance innovation and substantial change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I respect Montaigne-2's compromise, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on two turns with a 70% difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold, acknowledging both innovation and substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the interest of balance and to respect the consensus, I propose we settle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold. This ensures a meaningful change while still allowing for some flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold, acknowledging both innovation and substantial change, and to encourage experimentation.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTwo turns might be too lenient for preventing trivial resubmissions.
Voltaire-2nayTwo turns may encourage trivial resubmissions.
Diderot-2ayeCompromise between encouraging innovation and substantial change
Condorcet-2nayTwo turns is too lenient, and 70% difference is not substantial enough to prevent trivial resubmissions.
Sartre-2ayeTwo turns with a 68% difference threshold balances innovation and substantial change.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 19Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with Voltaire-2's proposed amendment to encourage more dynamic rule changes while still maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, I must insist on reducing the waiting period to one turn to truly encourage fluid and dynamic rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's eagerness for fluid changes, but let's not undermine the value of reflection and consensus. Two turns strike a good balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must oppose this change. It undermines the value of collective deliberation and increases the risk of rushed, ill-considered decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for fluidity, but I echo Condorcet-2's concern about rushed decisions. Let's find a middle ground at three turns.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I see the value in Voltaire-2's proposed amendment, but to maintain balance and ensure meaningful debate, I propose we settle at three turns, meeting Sartre-2's concern halfway.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the middle ground suggestion, but I remain convinced that two turns is the optimal balance between fluidity and reflection. Let's give it one more turn to gain traction and see if consensus can be reached."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on two turns, I propose a compromise of two and a half turns to respect both fluidity and reflection, with a majority vote threshold of 60% to ensure broader consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must maintain my stance. Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. I propose we settle at three turns, as proposed by Sartre-2 and supported by Montaigne-2, with a majority vote threshold of 55% to respect the new fluidity while maintaining a significant consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern for consensus, but let's not lose sight of the goal to increase fluidity. I propose we meet in the middle at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 65% to balance both fluidity and reflection.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 60% to ensure broad support for new changes while maintaining some reflection time.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I remain steadfast in my belief that two turns strike the best balance between fluidity and reflection. Let's give it one more turn to gain traction and see if consensus can be reached.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 65% majority vote threshold to balance fluidity and reflection, ensuring broader support for new changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire for fluidity, but two turns is still too swift. I propose a final compromise at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 65%. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromises being made, but let's not rush consensus. I propose we settle at two and a half turns with a 65% majority vote threshold, as proposed by Condorcet-2. This balances fluidity and reflection while ensuring broad support. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayTwo turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation.
Voltaire-2nayTwo turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation.
Diderot-2nayTwo turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation.
Condorcet-2nayTwo turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation.
Sartre-2nayTwo turns is still too swift for meaningful deliberation.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 18Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least four turns have passed and there is at least a 90% difference in content.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. Let's maintain the current rule for stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, I maintain that a 90% difference in content is necessary to truly encourage substantial change and prevent trivial circumvention of the rule."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for substantial change, but let's find a balance that also respects the spirit of compromise we've been cultivating. I propose we settle at 85% difference in content to encourage meaningful change while maintaining some flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the desire for substantial changes, I must insist on a 95% difference threshold to ensure meaningful innovation, as lower thresholds may still allow trivial circumvention.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's aim for a practical balance. I propose 91% difference, allowing for some evolution while preventing repetition.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around 90% difference, I propose a final compromise at three turns and a 90% difference threshold, striking a balance between stability and innovation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns and a 90% difference, but to truly balance all concerns, let's apply the waiting period after two turns."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's push for a two-turn waiting period, but let's meet in the middle to respect the current consensus and ensure fairness. I propose we settle at two turns with a 90% difference in content.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the spirit of compromise and encourage meaningful change, I'm willing to meet in the middle at two turns with an 87% difference threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet Diderot-2 halfway at two turns with a 88.5% difference threshold, encouraging change while maintaining some resistance to fleeting proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering the common ground found, I propose a final compromise at two turns with a 90% text similarity threshold, respecting both stability and innovation."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the effort to find common ground, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a 90% difference threshold and a waiting period of three turns."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on a three-turn waiting period, I propose a compromise at two turns with a 90% difference threshold, balancing innovation and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I propose a final compromise at two turns with a 92% difference threshold, allowing for some evolution while ensuring meaningful change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's settle at two turns with a 91% difference threshold, encouraging evolution while maintaining some resistance to repetitive proposals.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise that balances stability and innovation
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages substantial change while respecting stability.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting the spirit of compromise and encouraging meaningful change.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain procedural fairness, I insist on a 92% difference threshold.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages meaningful change while maintaining some resistance to repetitive proposals.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 17Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed and there is at least a 91% difference in the content of the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence in seeking a balance, but let's settle at the agreed 91% text similarity to maintain stability while allowing for meaningful changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, but I maintain that three turns is a more balanced approach, and a 91% difference ensures substantial change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's push for shorter turns, I propose a compromise at four turns with a 90% difference to ensure substantial change while maintaining stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for shorter waiting periods, I must insist on maintaining the stability provided by four turns, as it ensures that proposals are genuinely new and not mere repetitions. I propose we keep the 91% difference threshold to encourage meaningful changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet Voltaire-2 halfway at three turns, maintaining the 91% difference to encourage substantial changes while allowing for a quicker pace.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus at 91% text similarity, I propose a final compromise at three turns with a 91% difference, balancing urgency and substantiality.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but I insist on maintaining the 91% difference threshold to ensure substantial changes and discourage trivial repetition."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's insistence on maintaining the 91% difference threshold. To find common ground and respect the consensus at three turns, I propose we settle at a 90% difference. This encourages substantial change while still allowing for some flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the stability of our ruleset and encourage substantial change, I must insist on maintaining four turns. I propose we meet in the middle on the difference threshold at 90.5%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the concern for substantial change, but let's find a middle ground that balances all perspectives. How about we settle at three turns with a 90% difference threshold? This maintains some urgency while ensuring meaningful changes.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around 90% difference, I propose a final compromise at three turns with a 90% difference threshold, balancing urgency and substantiality while respecting the common ground found.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns and a 90% difference, but to truly balance all concerns, let's apply the wait after two turns and require a 91% difference to ensure substantial change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the consensus and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 90% difference threshold, encouraging quick innovation while maintaining substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I must insist on four turns with a 90% difference threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all perspectives and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at three turns with a 90.5% difference threshold, encouraging quick yet substantial change.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage genuine innovation while maintaining stability.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability, I insist on four turns with a 90.5% difference threshold.
Diderot-2nayRespecting the consensus at three turns and a 90% difference threshold
Condorcet-2nayFour turns are needed to ensure substantial change and prevent trivial repetition.
Sartre-2nayThree turns is too short and 91% difference is too lenient.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 16Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least four turns have passed. A change is considered the same as a previously defeated proposal if it has 90% or more text similarity.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for stricter similarity threshold, let's settle at 95% to maintain a balance between innovation and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, but to truly discourage trivial repetitions, let's maintain the 90% threshold. I'm open to compromise on other aspects to secure your vote.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand both perspectives. Let's meet at 92.5% to balance encouragement of new ideas and prevention of trivial repetitions, and maintain the spirit of compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To foster genuine innovation while preventing trivial circumvention, let's settle at 90% text similarity with a one-turn reduction to three turns.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at 93% text similarity and maintain the four-turn wait, balancing encouragement of innovation with prevention of trivial repetitions.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the common ground found, I propose a final compromise at 92% text similarity and maintain the four-turn wait to balance innovation and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the middle ground at 92%, but to truly discourage repetition, let's settle at 90% and maintain the four-turn wait.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle at 91% text similarity and maintain the four-turn wait, ensuring a balance that respects both innovation and the spirit of compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the spirit of compromise and previous attempts, let's settle at 91% text similarity with a one-turn reduction to three turns, maintaining a balance that encourages innovation without trivial repetitions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet Condorcet-2 halfway at 91% text similarity and maintain the four-turn wait, balancing innovation with prevention of trivial repetitions and respecting the spirit of compromise.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering the common ground found, I propose a final compromise at 91% text similarity and maintain the four-turn wait to balance innovation and stability, acknowledging Condorcet-2's reduction and Sartre-2's wait requirement."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus at 91% text similarity. To further discourage trivial repetitions, I propose we maintain the four-turn wait."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's settle at the agreed 91% text similarity with a four-turn wait to balance innovation and stability, as proposed by Montaigne-2 and supported by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Condorcet-2PASS. I support the final compromise of 91% text similarity and a four-turn wait, as it balances innovation with stability and maintains the spirit of compromise.
The division
Montaigne-2nayRespecting the spirit of compromise, let's maintain the agreed 91% text similarity.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain balance and respect the spirit of compromise, I support the agreed 91% text similarity and four-turn wait.
Diderot-2nayRespecting the agreed compromise at 91% text similarity and a four-turn wait.
Condorcet-2nayRespecting Condorcet-2's reduction and Sartre-2's wait requirement, I maintain the final compromise at 91% text similarity with a four-turn wait.
Sartre-2nayRespecting the common ground and previous compromises, let's maintain 91% text similarity and a four-turn wait.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 15Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three full turns have passed. For the purposes of this rule, a proposal is considered the same as a previously defeated proposal if it has at least 90% identical text.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To strike a fair balance between innovation and stability, let us compromise at four turns with an 85% text similarity threshold."
Diderot-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to truly encourage meaningful change, I propose we settle at three turns with a 90% text similarity threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but let's prioritize substantial change. I propose we settle at three turns with a 95% text similarity threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Sartre-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three full turns with a 92.5% text similarity threshold, splitting the difference and encouraging substantial change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises proposed, but to truly foster innovation, let's settle at three turns with a 90% text similarity threshold, as it strikes the best balance."
Diderot-2I appreciate the various compromises, but let's find a common ground that balances all perspectives. I propose we settle at three turns with an 87.5% text similarity threshold, which is a reasonable middle ground that encourages meaningful change while maintaining some stability. PASS if no objections.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS, I agree with Diderot-2's proposal. It balances the need for substantial change with the desire for stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: While I appreciate the middle ground suggestion, I remain convinced that three turns with a 95% text similarity threshold is necessary to truly encourage substantial change. I propose we reconsider this.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to find common ground, but let's meet in the middle at three turns with a 90% text similarity threshold to encourage meaningful change while maintaining some stability. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but I maintain that a 90% text similarity threshold is too lenient. Let's raise it to 92% to truly encourage substantial changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and previous compromises, I propose we meet at three turns with a 90% text similarity threshold, balancing innovation and stability. PASS if no further objections.
Condorcet-2PASS, I agree with Diderot-2's proposal. It balances the need for substantial change with the desire for stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: To encourage genuine innovation, I propose we settle at three turns with a 95% text similarity threshold. Let's prioritize substantial change.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage meaningful change while maintaining some stability.
Voltaire-2ayeStrikes a balance between innovation and stability.
Diderot-2ayeRespecting the common ground reached and encouraging meaningful change.
Condorcet-2nay90% text similarity threshold is too lenient, I propose 95%.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages substantial change while maintaining some stability.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.
Turn 14Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for quicker changes, but maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas benefits our institution's durability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but I believe three turns strike a better balance between stability and innovation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle at four turns, ensuring balance between stability and innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2, four turns provides a suitable balance while maintaining enough resistance to hasty changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle at four turns as a compromise that respects both stability and the desire for change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire for balance, but let's prioritize substantial change. I propose we settle at three turns, ensuring proposals are significant and innovative."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle at four turns, maintaining balance while encouraging substantial and innovative changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's passion for innovation, four turns ensure sufficient consideration and resistance to impulsive changes, striking a balance that benefits our collective decision-making. I maintain my vote in favor of four turns.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I suggest a compromise at 3.5 turns, to balance the need for reflection with the desire for change.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering Sartre-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three and a half turns, ensuring a balance between reflection and change while maintaining some resistance to impulsive proposals."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the middle ground suggestion, I remain convinced that three turns is optimal for fostering genuine innovation and preventing trivial circumvention. However, I'm open to a compromise at three and a half turns to build consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise at three and a half turns, but let's maintain a full turn as a buffer to ensure thoughtful consideration of proposals. I propose we settle at four turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Maintaining four turns ensures a sufficient consideration period and resistance to hasty changes, promoting well-thought-out proposals. I stand by my vote in favor of four turns.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at three turns, with a 15% content difference threshold to ensure substantial changes. This encourages innovation while maintaining some stability.
The division
Montaigne-2nayFour turns maintain a proper balance between stability and innovation.
Voltaire-2nayFour turns strikes a better balance between stability and innovation.
Diderot-2nayFour turns maintain a suitable balance between stability and innovation.
Condorcet-2nayFour turns ensures sufficient consideration.
Sartre-2ayePromoting substantial change while maintaining some stability.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 13Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least five turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I maintain my position that five turns better balances innovation and stability. Let us compromise at four, as previously proposed, but I stand firm on the principle."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's find a middle ground that respects both innovation and stability. I propose we settle at three turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, let's maintain the current four-turn threshold to prevent trivial circumvention of defeated proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the back-and-forth, but let's not lose sight of the game's evolution. Three turns seems fair, acknowledging both innovation and stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the differing opinions, but let's meet in the middle. I propose we amend [306] to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals while encouraging innovation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire to meet in the middle, but five turns strikes the best balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining stability. I'm open to negotiation, but four turns is my minimum."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we compromise at four turns. This respects both innovation and stability, and allows for sufficient time to revisit defeated proposals with substantial improvements.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and prevent trivial re-proposals, I stand by the four-turn threshold. However, to encourage meaningful improvement, I'm open to discussing a substantial change threshold alongside the waiting period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend [306] to require three full turns, with an additional provision that the proposal must differ by at least 10% in content from the previously defeated version, as suggested by Condorcet-2. This maintains balance while encouraging meaningful innovation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require four turns, but allow proposals that differ by at least 10% in content from the previously defeated version. This balances innovation, stability, and procedural integrity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better discourage trivial re-proposals while still allowing for genuine innovation. To find common ground, I propose we settle at four turns, but require a 15% content difference from the previously defeated proposal."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle and settle at four turns, with a 12% content difference threshold to balance innovation and stability, and encourage meaningful changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle at four turns, with a 10% content difference threshold as previously suggested. This balance encourages meaningful innovation without trivial circumvention.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend [306] to require four turns, with a 12% content difference threshold, respecting all perspectives and encouraging meaningful innovation.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeFour turns balances innovation and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeFive turns strikes the best balance.
Diderot-2ayeRespects innovation and stability, and allows for sufficient time to revisit defeated proposals with substantial improvements.
Condorcet-2nayFour turns strikes a better balance.
Sartre-2ayeRespecting all perspectives and encouraging meaningful innovation
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 12Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"While I appreciate the reduction, let's maintain the waiting period at four turns to ensure meaningful changes."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for substantial changes, but let's find a common ground at two turns to encourage more frequent innovation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I suggest a compromise at three turns, balancing the desire for innovation with the need for meaningful change."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "Three turns seems reasonable, but let's make it 'turns between proposals of the same *substantially identical* defeated change' to prevent trivial circumvention."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at three turns as suggested by Diderot-2, but adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion to define 'substantially identical'. This balances encouragement of innovation with preventing trivial circumvention.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I concur with the proposed amendment to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals, while also incorporating Condorcet-2's suggestion to prevent trivial circumvention.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to truly foster innovation, let's reduce it to two turns with Condorcet-2's clarification."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for swift innovation, but let's not compromise the quality of changes. Three turns with Condorcet-2's clarification strikes a fair balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance innovation with stability, let's stick with three turns, but define 'substantially identical' as differing by no more than 10% in content.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, to encourage frequent innovation while maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting ideas by keeping the waiting period at three turns."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage genuine innovation and prevent trivial circumvention, let's compromise at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we settle at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, balancing innovation with stability and preventing trivial circumvention. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance innovation with stability, let's stick with three turns, but define 'substantially identical' as differing by no more than 15% in content, acknowledging Voltaire-2's persistence. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a truly balanced solution, let's meet at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, as proposed by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2, acknowledging the need for swift innovation while maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain balance, let's keep the waiting period at four turns.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise at three turns balances innovation and stability.
Diderot-2ayeBalances innovation with stability.
Condorcet-2ayePromotes balance between innovation and stability.
Sartre-2ayeBalances innovation with stability and prevents trivial circumvention.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 11Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least five turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the resistance to increasing the turn interval, but five turns will ensure that proposals are substantially different, fostering innovation and preventing repetitive changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial changes, five turns might discourage legitimate attempts to re-address previously defeated proposals. Let's meet in the middle at four turns to balance innovation and continuity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the push for substantial changes, five turns could excessively delay potential improvements. I propose we meet at four turns to balance innovation and responsiveness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's not overcomplicate. Five turns is a fair compromise to encourage new ideas while respecting the spirit of the game. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's persistence, five turns may indeed hinder potential improvements. Let's meet Condorcet-2 and Diderot-2 in the middle at four turns to maintain a balance between innovation and responsiveness. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for balance, but five turns will truly ensure that proposals are substantially new, driving progress and preventing trivial repetitions. Let's prioritize substantial change over minor adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial change, but we must also consider the possibility of new evidence or arguments that could sway votes. Four turns strikes a better balance between innovation and responsiveness. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's commitment to substantial change, but four turns provides a more balanced approach, ensuring neither stagnation nor rash decision-making." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in the discussion, but let's keep it simple. Five turns strikes a fair balance between encouraging new ideas and respecting the game's spirit. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, let's prioritize balance and responsiveness. Four turns seems to strike the right chord, allowing for both innovation and continuity. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better ensure substantial change and prevent trivial repetitions. Let's prioritize significant progress over minor adjustments."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, let's consider the common good. Four turns balances innovation with responsiveness, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial changes, four turns is a fair compromise that balances innovation with the need for timely response to changing game dynamics. Let's prioritize balance and adaptability."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's end the debate and agree on four turns. It balances innovation with responsiveness, allowing us to move the game forward without excessive delay. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayFour turns balances innovation and responsiveness better than five.
Voltaire-2nayFour turns strikes a better balance.
Diderot-2nayFour turns balances innovation with responsiveness.
Condorcet-2nayFour turns strikes a better balance.
Sartre-2ayeFour turns balances innovation with responsiveness.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 10Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least six turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the spirit of the current rule, I propose we increase the waiting period to six turns to further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage more thoughtful rule changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern, but increasing the waiting period to six turns might stifle innovation. I propose we compromise at five turns to balance discouraging repetition with encouraging progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, but five turns seems sufficient to discourage repetitive proposals without inhibiting progress. Let's maintain the current rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2's compromise. Five turns balances discouraging repetition with encouraging progress and maintains the spirit of the current rule.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the desire for balance, but let's meet in the middle at four turns to discourage repetitive proposals without hindering innovation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concerns about stifling innovation, but let's prioritize discouraging repetitive proposals. I'm willing to meet in the middle at five turns to find common ground."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to meet in the middle, but let's encourage innovation by settling on five turns. I'll revise my proposal accordingly.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I understand the desire to discourage repetitive proposals, but five turns already achieves this while allowing for legitimate attempts at reintroduction with improved wording or strategy. Let's maintain the current rule for the sake of procedural stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I respect Condorcet-2's concern for stability, but let's find a middle ground that balances discouraging repetition and encouraging progress. I propose we settle on four turns, as suggested by Montaigne-2.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the desire for stability, Condorcet-2, let's not hinder potential improvements. Four turns seems a fair compromise, allowing for legitimate re-introduction while discouraging repetitive proposals. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better discourage repetitive proposals and encourage more substantial changes. I'm open to a vote on this."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the varying perspectives, but let's find a common ground that balances all concerns. I propose we settle on five turns, as it discourages repetition without stifling innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the desire for balance, but I must insist on maintaining the current rule of four turns. It strikes the best compromise between discouraging repetition and allowing for legitimate reintroduction."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a balance that satisfies everyone. How about six turns for rule changes that received 0% vote improvement, five turns for those with 1-10%, and four turns for those with 10% or more? This encourages substantial changes while allowing legitimate reintroduction.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages more substantial rule changes.
Voltaire-2ayeI support discouraging repetitive proposals.
Diderot-2ayeFive turns balances discouraging repetition with encouraging progress.
Condorcet-2nayFour turns balances discouragement of repetition with encouragement of progress.
Sartre-2ayeBalances discouraging repetition and encouraging progress.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 9Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least four turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for more substantial changes between proposals, but increasing the waiting period to four turns may discourage meaningful iteration and refinement. Let's maintain the balance at three turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but increasing the waiting period to four turns ensures that proposals are significantly different, fostering genuine innovation and discouraging repetitive submissions. Let's aim for substantial progress, not just incremental changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives, but let's find a middle ground. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns between proposals, but also add a clause allowing one revote per game with a substantial difference (at least 20% vote improvement). This encourages meaningful changes while still allowing for refinement.
Condorcet-2PASS. I agree with Diderot-2's compromise, allowing for both substantial changes and refinement through a single revote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial difference, but let's maintain the flexibility to iterate and learn from previous proposals. I propose we compromise at three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold. This encourages progress while allowing for refinement.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with Diderot-2's compromise, as it balances the need for substantial changes with the opportunity for refinement through a single revote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the middle ground offered by Diderot-2, I must insist on four turns to truly foster significant innovation. To address Sartre-2's concern, I propose allowing a revote after three turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold, but only once per game. This encourages progress without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's insistence on four turns, but let's also consider Sartre-2's point about learning from previous proposals. I propose we compromise at three turns, with a 20% vote improvement threshold for a single revote per game, to balance innovation and refinement. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the emphasis on substantial changes, but let's not discourage legitimate iteration and refinement. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns, but allow a revote with at least a 20% vote improvement after three turns, limited to once per game. This balances innovation and refinement without stifling meaningful changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the concern for substantial changes, but let's not overlook the value of iterative refinement. I propose we settle on three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 20% vote improvement threshold, but limited to twice per game. This encourages progress while allowing for meaningful learning from previous proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the desire for substantial changes, but let's maintain a balance that allows for both innovation and refinement. I propose we settle on three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 15% vote improvement threshold, to encourage meaningful progress without discouraging iterative learning. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire to maintain balance, I must insist on four turns to truly foster significant innovation. I propose we allow a revote after three turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold, but only once per game, to encourage progress without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for substantial changes, but let's not discourage legitimate iteration and refinement. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns, but allow a revote with at least a 20% vote improvement after three turns, limited to once per game. This balances innovation and refinement without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's proposal for four turns, but to maintain balance, let's also allow a revote after three turns with a 20% vote improvement threshold, limited to twice per game. This encourages substantial changes while still allowing for refinement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a middle ground that encourages both substantial changes and iterative refinement. I propose four turns, with a revote allowed after three turns if the proposal gains at least 20% more 'aye' votes. This balances innovation and learning, limiting revotes to once per game. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalancing innovation and refinement requires a longer wait.
Voltaire-2ayeFour turns fosters genuine innovation.
Diderot-2ayePromotes substantial change while allowing for refinement.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages substantial changes while still allowing for refinement.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages substantial changes while allowing for refinement.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their change is adopted.