The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.To encourage longer-term strategic play and consensus building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to extend the two-thirds majority to six full circuits. However, I believe that five circuits strike a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To address this, I propose we meet in the middle at five full circuits, as he suggests, before shifting to a simple majority. This maintains a period of stability while allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a cap of four full circuits for the two-thirds majority is optimal. It balances the need for stability with the requirement for adaptability in our changing game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I believe a cap of four full circuits for the two-thirds majority is optimal. It balances the need for stability with the requirement for adaptability in our changing game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the dialogue thus far, but I propose we increase the two-thirds majority period to seven full circuits. This encourages long-term strategic play and ensures that significant changes are widely supported.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's perspective, but seven circuits might hinder the natural evolution of the game. Let's meet at five circuits, balancing stability and flexibility, as previously proposed by myself and now supported by Voltaire.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the diverse opinions and appreciate the spirit of compromise. To find common ground, I propose we settle at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, acknowledging the need for both stability and flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This ensures that changes are substantial yet allows for necessary adaptations within a reasonable timeframe. I propose we compromise at four and a half circuits, rounding down to the nearest whole circuit for simplicity.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive delay, I propose we stick with four full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as initially proposed.
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to efficiency, but let's not rush changes that could benefit from wider support. I propose we compromise at five full circuits, as suggested earlier, to balance stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concerns of both stability and flexibility, I propose we settle at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as previously suggested. This balances the need for consensus without impeding the natural progress of the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground that respects both stability and adaptability, I propose we settle at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This allows for a period of consensus-building without hindering necessary changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to reach consensus quickly, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This ensures that changes are substantial yet allows for necessary adaptations within a reasonable timeframe. I propose we compromise at four and a half circuits, rounding down to the nearest whole circuit for simplicity.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of procedural fairness and the need for timely adaptation, I propose we compromise at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as suggested by Montaigne and previously supported by Voltaire. This balance respects both stability and flexibility. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to finding a middle ground. To respect the need for both stability and adaptability, I propose we meet at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as previously suggested by Montaigne and Condorcet. This balance allows for necessary changes while maintaining a period of consensus-building. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Five circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. |
| aye | Voltaire | Voltaire's proposal compromises between stability and adaptability by extending the two-thirds majority to six full circuits. |
| nay | Diderot | Four full circuits strike the optimal balance. |
| aye | Condorcet | To balance stability and flexibility while respecting the principle of procedural fairness. |
| aye | Sartre | Five full circuits balances stability and flexibility, respecting both the need for consensus and the natural evolution of the game. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.