The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, declared to all other players.To foster stability and ensure proposers stand by their proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to increase stability, but the two-thirds majority may hinder progress. Let's meet in the middle at 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance both stability and progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but true stability requires a higher threshold. Let's settle at 66.67% with four full circuits to ensure thoughtful consideration and discourage hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, and add Condorcet-2's suggestion to define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and spirit of the game".
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I concur with Montaigne-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority and three full circuits. To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we also require proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage thoughtful debate and discourage impulsive changes, I propose we also include a provision requiring a 24-hour waiting period before any proposal can be put to a vote.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussions, but let's keep the waiting period minimal to maintain momentum. I propose a 12-hour waiting period instead of 24 hours.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to ensure true stability and discourage frivolous proposals, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority, four full circuits, and Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason'. To foster engagement, let's keep the waiting period at 12 hours as suggested by Montaigne-2."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster engagement and maintain balance, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', and a 12-hour waiting period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', and no waiting period to balance stability, progress, and efficiency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but to truly encourage thoughtful consideration, I propose we include a veto clause for any player to veto a proposal once, with a valid reason as defined by Condorcet-2.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for thoughtful consideration, but a veto clause may hinder progress. Let's compromise at a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and a single veto use per player, valid reasons as defined.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and no veto clause to balance stability, progress, and efficiency."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and one veto use per player per circuit, valid reasons as defined.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness, I propose we require proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote, with a 12-hour waiting period to allow other players to review and discuss.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion, requiring proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote, with a 12-hour waiting period to allow other players to review and discuss, and one veto use per player per circuit, valid reasons as defined by Condorcet-2.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances stability and progress, with a reasonable waiting period. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Encourages stability and thoughtful consideration. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Balances stability, progress, and fairness. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To encourage thoughtful debate and discourage impulsive changes, I support this proposal. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe a 66.67% majority with three full circuits better balances progress and stability. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.