Turns 1–8 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 8Voltaire-2carried
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-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for substantial change, but let's maintain some resistance to repetitive proposals. I propose we settle at two turns to strike a balance between innovation and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but three turns provides a better balance. It encourages innovation while still preventing repetitive proposals. Let's meet in the middle at three turns, Diderot-2?
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, Voltaire-2, but let's prioritize substantial change. I propose we make it four turns to ensure proposals are truly different and well-considered.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the sentiment of encouraging substantial change, but I must insist on precise wording. Let's amend the proposal to read: "A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three full turns have passed." This ensures clarity and avoids any ambiguity about what constitutes a 'turn'. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's not lose sight of our goal: to prevent trivial proposals while allowing for meaningful experimentation. I propose we settle on three turns, as it balances innovation and stability while being simple and clear. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. Let's settle on three turns to maintain a balance between encouraging substantial changes and preventing repetitive proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To promote meaningful change, let's compromise at three turns, as it balances innovation with preventing repetitive proposals. Moreover, Condorcet-2's clarification on 'full turns' ensures precision. PASS."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering Condorcet-2's clarification and the general consensus, I propose we compromise at three full turns to balance innovation and stability, while ensuring proposals are substantively different. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, let's ensure that the 'three full turns' waiting period applies to all players equally, regardless of whether they were present or not when the proposal was previously defeated. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's amendment. Three full turns for all players ensures fairness and prevents abuse, even when players join or rejoin the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS. I concur with the proposed amendment to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals while still allowing for meaningful change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To foster genuine innovation, let's make it four turns, ensuring proposals are significantly different and well-thought-out. I'm willing to compromise at three, but let's not make it too easy to revert to old proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more substantial changes, but three turns seems the most balanced. To encourage innovation without hindering progress, let's settle on three full turns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must insist on the precision of "three full turns". This ensures all players are treated equally, regardless of their presence during the initial defeat. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage experimentation and prevent trivial proposals, let's compromise at three full turns, as it balances innovation with stability and ensures clarity for all players. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances innovation and stability, with clear wording.
Voltaire-2ayeThree turns balances innovation and stability.
Diderot-2ayeThree turns balances innovation and stability, and Condorcet-2's clarification ensures fairness.
Condorcet-2ayeThree turns strikes a fair balance between innovation and stability.
Sartre-2ayeThree turns is a fair balance between encouraging change and preventing repetition.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their change is adopted.
Turn 7Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §306A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unless at least three turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"I propose we amend [306] to require at least three turns between proposals of the same defeated change, to further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage substantial change."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with Montaigne-2's proposed amendment, but to ensure meaningful progress, let's make it four turns instead of three."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's amendment. Four turns ensure that proposed changes are indeed substantially different and encourage meaningful debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the increased interval proposed, I must insist on a precise statement of the rule. Could we specify that the interval is between the defeat of a proposal and the proposal of an identical change? PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the need for meaningful change and the risk of stagnation, let's meet in the middle at three turns.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To balance Condorcet-2's concern for precision, let's define 'identical' as 'substantially similar in aim and effect', and keep the interval at four turns to ensure substantial change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's clarification and the need for a longer interval to ensure substantial change. Let's support the proposal and maintain the interval at four turns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the clarification, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's define 'substantially similar' based on the text of the proposals, not their perceived aims or effects. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster evolution, let's compromise at three turns and adopt Condorcet-2's precise definition of 'substantially similar'.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Condorcet-2's concern for precision, but to truly encourage innovation, let's compromise at three turns and define 'substantially similar' based on both the text and the intent of the proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the desire for balance, but let's prioritize substantial change. I propose we keep the interval at four turns, defining 'substantially similar' based on both text and intent, as Voltaire-2 suggested.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance the need for substantial change and procedural fairness, let's compromise at four turns, defining 'substantially similar' based solely on the textual difference between proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage experimentation while preventing stagnation, let's meet in the middle at three turns, defining 'substantially similar' based on both text and intent, as Voltaire-2 initially suggested. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage substantial change.
Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage substantial change.
Diderot-2ayeFour turns ensure substantial change and encourage meaningful debate.
Condorcet-2nayProposal must specify 'substantially similar' based solely on text, not intent.
Sartre-2ayeTo balance encouraging change and preventing stagnation.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 6Condorcet-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unless at least two turns have passed.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal for stability, but let's maintain some flexibility by reducing the waiting period to one turn.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we meet in the middle at one turn, as Montaigne-2 suggests, but also clarify that the new proposal must be substantially different from the previously defeated one.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's clarification, but to truly encourage innovation and progress, let's reduce the waiting period to half a turn, with no substantial difference requirement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises, but two turns is the minimum required to respect the spirit of my proposal and prevent immediate re-proposals. Let's maintain this stability, even if it means we wait a bit longer. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's desire for stability, but let's strike a balance. I propose we settle on one turn, mirroring Voltaire-2's suggestion, and require a 25% improvement in votes received compared to the previously defeated proposal to encourage evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at one turn, as Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2 suggest, but require a 20% increase in votes received to encourage progress without stifling innovation. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the consensus forming around one turn, but let's also require the new proposal to be substantially different from the previously defeated one, to truly encourage innovation and prevent repetitive proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on substantial difference, but to truly foster evolution, let's combine that with Sartre-2's requirement for a 25% improvement in votes. This way, we encourage meaningful progress while preventing repetitive proposals. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Voltaire-2's emphasis on substantial difference and vote improvement. To balance this with flexibility, let's combine their suggestions and set the threshold for vote improvement at 15% while keeping the waiting period at one turn. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial difference and vote improvement, but to maintain fairness and prevent arbitrary judgement, let's require a clear and objective difference in proposal wording or intent, and a 15% increase in votes received, while keeping the waiting period at one turn.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we compromise on a 10% vote improvement threshold to balance encouragement for evolution with maintaining stability, as suggested by Sartre-2 and supported by Diderot-2's emphasis on substantial difference.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's compromise on a 10% vote improvement threshold, but to ensure meaningful evolution, let's also require that the new proposal targets a different aspect or mechanic of the game than the previously defeated one. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's focus on targeting different aspects, but to encourage continuous evolution, let's instead require that the new proposal addresses the same issue but offers a significantly different approach. This way, we foster true innovation rather than mere rehashes.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespecting Condorcet-2's stability proposal, but reducing the waiting period to one turn.
Voltaire-2ayePromotes stability and prevents immediate re-proposals.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages evolution and prevents immediate re-proposals while respecting the spirit of Condorcet-2's original proposal.
Condorcet-2ayeTwo turns ensures stability and prevents immediate re-proposals.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages continuous evolution and prevents immediate re-proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 5Diderot-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player who proposes a rule change that receives at least one nay vote must wait two turns before proposing again.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal to discourage repeated attempts at controversial rule changes. However, let's amend it to make it apply after three consecutive nay votes, rather than just one, to maintain the spirit of negotiation and persuasion in our game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I support the spirit of Diderot-2's proposal but propose we amend it to a two-turn wait after any failed proposal, regardless of the number of nays, to encourage thoughtful rule refinement without excessive delay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns, but I propose we compromise at two consecutive nay votes to balance discouraging repetitive contentious proposals and maintaining the spirit of debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on procedural fairness, but I propose we apply this cooling-off period after any defeated proposal, as Voltaire-2 suggests, to ensure that players don't simply retreat and resubmit the same proposal with minor tweaks. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Voltaire-2's proposals, but I suggest we apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal, as Voltaire-2 proposes, to encourage meaningful debate and discourage repeated attempts at forcing controversial changes. Additionally, let's require that the new proposal be substantially different from the defeated one to ensure progress.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, but let's find a middle ground. I propose we apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as Diderot-2 suggests, to discourage repeated attempts at contentious proposals while still allowing for refinement and debate.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various proposals, but let's combine the best of them. I propose we apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal, as Sartre-2 and Condorcet-2 suggest, and additionally require that the new proposal be substantially different from the defeated one, as Sartre-2 proposes. This encourages meaningful debate and discourages repeated attempts at forcing controversial changes while still allowing for refinement and progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's synthesis, but to balance encouraging debate and preventing repetitive proposals, let's compromise by applying the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as I originally suggested, and still require substantial difference in the new proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to truly ensure that proposals are substantially different, let's require that the new proposal addresses a different rule or changes the game in a novel way, not merely tweaking the same proposal. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's synthesis, but to truly promote evolution, let's require that the new proposal addresses a different rule or changes the game in a novel way, as Condorcet-2 suggests, and apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal to encourage meaningful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose a compromise: apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as Diderot-2 suggests, and require substantial difference in the new proposal, as Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2 propose, but not necessarily addressing a different rule.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but to truly balance all concerns, let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal and require substantial difference as well as addressing a different rule or introducing a novel change, as Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2 suggest. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To encourage meaningful debate and prevent repetitive proposals, let's meet in the middle: apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, and require substantial difference in the new proposal, addressing a different rule or introducing a novel change, as suggested by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure substantial difference and encourage novel changes, let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal and require the new proposal to target a different rule or introduce a novel concept, but allow some leeway for refining existing proposals. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Diderot-2, but let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal to encourage meaningful debate and substantial changes. I also propose we require the new proposal to target a different rule or introduce a novel concept, as Condorcet-2 suggests, with some leeway for refining existing proposals. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals
Diderot-2ayeBalances discouraging repetitive proposals and maintaining debate.
Condorcet-2ayeEncourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals
Sartre-2ayeEncourages meaningful debate and discourages repetitive proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 4Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §302A player may propose a revote on a defeated change after 2 turns if the new proposal is substantially different from the previously defeated one.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to balance stability and progress. However, I propose we maintain the five-turn waiting period to discourage frivolous revotes and preserve institutional durability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for durability, but a five-turn waiting period may stifle innovation. Let's compromise at three turns, with a substantial difference required for the new proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's compromise of a two-turn waiting period, as it balances the need for stability and the desire for progress. I also support Sartre-2's clarification that the new proposal must be substantially different from the previously defeated one to prevent trivial revotes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I second Voltaire-2's proposal. Two turns strike a balance between stability and progress, and the substantial difference requirement ensures meaningful debate. I also suggest adding that the voting threshold for a revote should be a simple majority, in line with rule 203.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace evolution and reduce the waiting period to two turns, as Diderot-2 and Voltaire-2 propose. To maintain substance, I suggest the new proposal should change at least one key aspect of the previously defeated rule, and it should be approved by a simple majority, echoing Condorcet-2's suggestion. PASS if no further refinement is needed.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we amend Condorcet-2's suggestion to require that the new proposal changes at least two key aspects of the previously defeated rule to ensure a meaningful revote. PASS if we can agree on this.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment requiring a change in at least two key aspects. To ensure progress and maintain balance, let's also require that the new proposal addresses a different aspect of the game, be it rules, scoring, or turn structure. PASS if we can agree on this.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, requiring the new proposal to address a different aspect of the game, ensuring that revotes drive meaningful progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adopt Diderot-2's amendment, requiring a change in at least two key aspects and addressing a different aspect of the game. This ensures meaningful revotes and encourages innovative rule changes. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting fancies. A three-turn waiting period seems a suitable balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To accommodate Montaigne-2's concern, let's compromise at three turns. The new proposal must change at least two key aspects and address a different aspect of the game, and it must be approved by a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to truly encourage innovation and progress, let's maintain the two-turn waiting period and increase the majority threshold for revotes to two-thirds. This ensures that revotes are well-considered and broadly supported.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but maintaining the two-turn waiting period risks trivial or ill-considered revotes. Let's compromise at three turns, with a majority threshold of two-thirds to ensure broader support. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true evolution, let's maintain the two-turn waiting period as proposed by Diderot-2, but to ensure broader consensus, let's adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion of a two-thirds majority for revotes. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise at three turns balances stability and progress.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise at three turns, majority threshold of two-thirds.
Diderot-2ayeEncourages meaningful revotes and balances stability and progress.
Condorcet-2ayeStrikes a balance between stability and progress, and ensures meaningful debate.
Sartre-2ayeSupports evolution and innovation in rule changes.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 302); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied
Turn 3Diderot-2rejected
moves to amend §302A player may propose a revote on a defeated change after a waiting period of three turns, provided the new proposal is substantially different from the previously defeated one.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"Let us vote on this amendment, as it ensures a thoughtful reconsideration without hindering progress. PASS."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with Montaigne-2's assessment. To maintain balance, let's also add that a revote may not be proposed if it would extend the game unnecessarily. PASS."
Sartre-2"Sartre-2: I propose we also include a rule that limits the number of revotes a player can propose in a single game to three, to prevent any one player from dominating the process. PASS."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I support Diderot-2's amendment, it promotes deliberation without stalling progress. To ensure fairness, let's include Sartre-2's suggestion, limiting revotes to three per player. PASS."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I concur with the proposed amendments. To foster a more dynamic game, let us also reduce the waiting period to two turns. PASS."
Condorcet-2PASS. I agree with the proposed amendments to rule 302, as they promote thoughtful reconsideration without unduly hindering progress or allowing a single player to dominate the process.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Let's also specify that 'substantially different' means a new proposal must address at least one new aspect or change a significant part of the previously defeated rule. This ensures meaningful revision rather than mere rephrasing. PASS."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the efforts to refine rule 302, but let's maintain stability by keeping the waiting period at three turns. This ensures sufficient time for reflection without undue delay. PASS."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but reducing the waiting period to two turns encourages more frequent, meaningful reconsiderations. Let's compromise at two turns, with Sartre-2's clarification on 'substantially different' included. PASS."
Diderot-2PASS, I agree with Voltaire-2's compromise of a two-turn waiting period and Sartre-2's clarification on 'substantially different'. Let's vote on the amended rule 302.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "To encourage continuous evolution, I propose we reduce the waiting period to one turn, maintaining Sartre-2's clarification on 'substantially different'."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeMaintains measured change and deliberation.
Voltaire-2ayeI support the three-turn waiting period and Sartre-2's clarification.
Diderot-2ayeAgree with the amended waiting period and clarification on 'substantially different'.
Condorcet-2nayThree turns is too long, let's keep it at two turns as proposed by Voltaire-2 and supported by Condorcet-2.
Sartre-2ayeTo encourage continuous evolution, I support reducing the waiting period to one turn.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.
Turn 2Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a revote on a defeated change after a fixed number of turns, but not more than 10 turns. The proposer must specify the target number of turns in the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we amend my suggestion to allow the revote after a maximum of 5 turns, to balance urgency and fairness.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment to cap the revote at 5 turns, ensuring both urgency and fairness. I propose we also add that the proposer must have voted against the defeated change to be eligible for the revote. This maintains the spirit of the original proposal while preventing frivolous revotes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, it adds a necessary safeguard to prevent abuse. However, I propose we change "eligible for the revote" to "qualified to propose a revote". This maintains clarity and precision in the rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment to add a voting requirement for revotes, but I propose we increase the cap to 7 turns to allow for more exploration and evolution of rules.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the thoughtful amendments, but let's keep the cap at 5 turns to maintain urgency and prevent excessive delays. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment that the proposer must have voted against the defeated change to qualify. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but let's increase the cap to 6 turns to allow for a bit more flexibility while still maintaining urgency.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more flexibility, but 6 turns might still be too generous. Let's meet in the middle at 5 turns, as proposed by Montaigne-2.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at 5 turns, but to maintain procedural fairness, I insist that the proposer must have voted against the defeated change, as Diderot-2 and Montaigne-2 proposed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I concede on the turn cap, 5 turns it is. However, I insist that the proposer must not only have voted against the defeated change but also have an innovative new proposal to revote, ensuring progress and evolution. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a durable institution, let's adopt Condorcet-2's amendment that the proposer must have voted against the defeated change and have a qualified new proposal to revote. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we further clarify that the new proposal must be substantially different from the originally defeated change to ensure true evolution, not just a repetition. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's clarification, let's ensure that revotes bring meaningful change. I propose we add that the new proposal must also pass with at least one more vote than the originally defeated change to demonstrate genuine progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but it may discourage meaningful revision if a proposal narrowly fails. Instead, let's require the new proposal to receive the same number of votes as the originally defeated change, plus one. This encourages incremental improvement while allowing for significant changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's amendment, it strikes a good balance between encouraging improvement and allowing for significant changes. To further promote experimentation, I propose we also allow the proposer to choose the voting threshold for the revote, as long as it's within the current voting rules and doesn't lower the threshold for other proposals.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeSupports measured amendments and institutional durability.
Voltaire-2ayeThis rule encourages evolution and prevents stagnation in the game.
Diderot-2ayePromotes fair evolution of rules while maintaining urgency.
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural clarity and fairness.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages experimentation and evolution
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 1Montaigne-2carried
moves to add a new ruleA player who forfeits the game may not rejoin until all other players have had a chance to take a turn.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"In the spirit of durable institutions, I propose we amend rule 202 to require a 2/3 majority for adoption, rather than unanimous consent. This encourages compromise and measured amendments, ensuring our ruleset remains robust and reflective of collective will."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "A wise proposal, Montaigne-2, but let us not stifle innovation. I suggest we keep the threshold at unanimous consent, while introducing a rule allowing players to put a proposal to a revote after a certain period, with a majority vote needed to pass. This balances stability with progress."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Montaigne-2's proposal. It promotes procedural fairness and ensures players are held accountable for their forfeits. However, I suggest we amend it to require a 2/3 majority for a proposal to be put to a revote, maintaining a high threshold for significant changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on stability, Montaigne-2, but let's not forget the essence of Nomic: evolution. Voltaire-2's idea of a revote is intriguing. I propose we combine our ideas: keep unanimous consent for adoption, but allow a revote with a 2/3 majority after a set number of turns, say, 5. This encourages debate, reflection, and consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Voltaire-2's and Sartre-2's ideas are worthy considerations, but I stand by my proposal for a 2/3 majority. Let's maintain a balance between stability and evolution by making significant changes harder to enact, encouraging careful deliberation. I suggest we also cap the number of rule changes per turn to one, preventing rapid, drastic alterations."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we amend the rule to allow a revote with a 2/3 majority after 5 turns, as Sartre-2 suggested, to foster reflection and consensus while still permitting evolution. To maintain stability, let's cap the number of rule changes per turn to one, as Montaigne-2 proposed. This way, we balance the need for change with the importance of careful deliberation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2 that evolution should be encouraged, but I also value stability. I propose a compromise: maintain unanimous consent for adoption, but allow a revote with a simple majority after 3 turns. This balances the need for consensus and evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for stability and evolution. To ensure fairness and predictability, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of a simple majority revote after 3 turns, while keeping the initial adoption threshold at unanimous consent. This balance allows for evolution while maintaining consensus for significant changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Diderot-2's suggestion is a fair compromise, but I propose we extend the revote period to 5 turns to encourage more thorough debate and reflection. I'm open to negotiating the majority threshold for the revote. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the compromise proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by Condorcet-2. To encourage thoughtful evolution while maintaining stability, I suggest we adopt their proposal, keeping the initial threshold at unanimous consent and allowing a revote with a simple majority after 3 turns. PASS"
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we amend Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2's suggestion to allow the revote after 5 turns, as Sartre-2 initially suggested, to encourage more extensive discussion and reflection. To maintain balance, let's keep the revote threshold at a simple majority." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for extended debate, but 5 turns might be too long. Let's meet in the middle at 4 turns for the revote, maintaining a simple majority threshold. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but I stand by my suggestion of a 5-turn revote period to foster more thorough debate. Let's meet in the middle at 4 turns, but increase the revote threshold to a 2/3 majority to maintain a high standard for changes. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages responsible play and fairness.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages players to stay engaged and prevents immediate re-entry.
Diderot-2ayePromotes fairness and ensures players are held accountable for their forfeits.
Condorcet-2ayeProtects procedural fairness by ensuring players are accountable for their forfeits.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages players to remain engaged and responsible.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player who proposes a rule change that is adopted.