The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of all eligible voters vote 'aye' until three full circuits of every player have passed, then it drops to a simple majority (50%+1) of those voting.To balance the need for consensus and the desire for progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain some level of consensus and stability, let's compromise at four full circuits before shifting to a simple majority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but to truly encourage strategic play and prevent stagnation, I insist on three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, a compromise at four full circuits balances consensus and progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure a gradual shift and respect all viewpoints, let's settle on four full circuits, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. Four circuits maintain a balance between consensus and progress. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the collective preference for four circuits, but to foster adaptability, I propose we meet at three and a half circuits, rounding down to three full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for adaptability, settling on four full circuits ensures a more gradual shift and respects all viewpoints. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve some level of consistency and respect the collective will, let's stick with four full circuits as previously agreed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at three and three-quarters circuits, rounding down to four full circuits, to respect the spirit of compromise and maintain some level of consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue, I propose we meet at three and three-quarters circuits, rounding down to four full circuits, to respect the collective will and maintain some level of consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Very well, I concede to the collective will. Let us adopt four full circuits as the agreed-upon compromise. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure fairness and respect all viewpoints, let's maintain the four full circuits compromise, as it provides a balanced transition between consensus and progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support the compromise of four full circuits, as it strikes a fair balance between consensus and progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend the compromise to three and a half circuits, rounding down, to encourage more frequent rule changes while still maintaining some level of consensus.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | To maintain stability and longevity, four full circuits are necessary. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Three circuits is too low, it undermines the spirit of consensus. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To maintain a balance between consensus and progress, I maintain that four full circuits is the fair compromise. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four full circuits maintains a better balance between consensus and progress. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Three circuits may lead to too frequent rule changes, disrupting stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.