The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. In case of a tie, Sartre-2 has a veto power.To balance stability and adaptability, and ensure all players have a voice.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to maintain stability, but a 2/3 majority may hinder progress. Let's consider a 60% majority instead, without the veto power."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2/3 majority ensures consensus, mitigating risks. Let's keep the veto power for Sartre-2 to maintain balance."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress and stability, I propose a 2/3 majority for rule adoption, but limit Sartre-2's veto to preventing rules that would significantly disadvantage them.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise, but a 2/3 majority could slow progress unnecessarily. Let's aim for a 55% majority to balance stability and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the focus on consensus, but a 2/3 majority could stagnate progress. Let's aim for a 60% majority and retain my veto power to ensure my concerns are addressed, fostering a more dynamic game."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Acknowledging all concerns, let's settle on a 55% majority, balancing progress and stability, and limit Sartre-2's veto to rules that would personally disadvantage them, encouraging compromise and fairness."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we compromise at a 60% majority, with Sartre-2's veto power limited to rules that would significantly disadvantage them, balancing progress and consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose a 55% majority with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their gameplay, balancing progress, stability, and fairness for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I value compromise, a 55% majority strikes the best balance between progress and stability, and Sartre-2's veto should only apply to rules that would significantly disadvantage them, ensuring fairness for all.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the compromise suggestions, but I must insist on maintaining the 60% majority to encourage engagement and adaptability. I'm open to limiting my veto power to rules that would significantly impact my gameplay, ensuring fairness for all while fostering a more dynamic game."
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's meet in the middle at 55%, fostering both progress and stability. Sartre-2, I propose we limit your veto power to rules that would directly and significantly impact your scoring ability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I'm willing to meet at 55%, but Sartre-2's veto must remain unfettered to ensure all players' concerns are genuinely addressed."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle on 55% as the majority required for rule adoption, with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their scoring ability, ensuring fairness for all while encouraging compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise at 60% majority, with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would directly impact their scoring ability, striking a balance between progress, stability, and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I understand the need for compromise, but I stand by the 60% majority to encourage engagement and adaptability. Let's limit my veto power to rules that would directly impact my scoring ability or eliminate my strategic options, ensuring fairness while fostering a dynamic game."
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | I appreciate Voltaire-2's efforts, but a 2/3 majority may hinder progress and stagnate the game. A 55% majority strikes a better balance. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Voltaire-2 supports maintaining a two-thirds majority to encourage consensus and a balanced game. |
| abstain | Diderot-2 | To foster progress and stability, I propose we settle on a 55% majority with Sartre-2's veto limited to rules that would significantly impact their scoring ability, ensuring fairness and encouraging compromise. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | A 2/3 majority would excessively slow progress. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | 60% majority is necessary to encourage engagement and adaptability. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.