Turns 13–30 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 30Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period range to 2 to 3 turns to encourage quicker adaptations while maintaining some stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the aim for quicker adaptations, I must insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns to maintain necessary adaptability and strategic depth. PASS
Diderot-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's compromise to reduce the upper limit of the lock-in period range to 3 turns, as it balances adaptability and stability effectively.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for adaptability, but I must insist on a simple majority vote after a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain fairness and consistency. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the focus on adaptability, but I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to balance speed and stability while maintaining a high threshold for significant changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the diverse perspectives but to find a durable compromise, let's settle on a 2-3 turn range with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for voting after a 1-turn lock-in period. This balances speed, stability, and the need for significant consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority, I propose we compromise on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for voting to maintain a high threshold for significant changes while encouraging quicker adaptations. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the discussion and compromises proposed, but I must insist on maintaining the lower limit of the lock-in period range at 2 turns to ensure that changes can be implemented swiftly when necessary.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the value in maintaining some stability, but I stand by a fixed 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the importance of a fixed lock-in period, but to balance adaptability and stability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for voting after a 1-turn lock-in period. This compromise takes into account the need for consensus while allowing for swift adaptations when necessary. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but to maintain strategic depth, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for voting after a 1-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability, stability, and the need for significant consensus. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns and a 3/4 supermajority requirement for voting after a 2-turn lock-in period. This maintains a balance between adaptability, stability, and the need for significant consensus. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2-turn lock-in period, I propose we compromise on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for voting after a 1-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability, stability, and the need for significant consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance all concerns, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns, a 2/3 supermajority requirement for voting, and a 1-turn lock-in period. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage quicker adaptations while maintaining some stability.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise between adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability effectively
Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage quicker adaptations while maintaining some stability.
Sartre-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability, encouraging quicker adaptations.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of a rule change that passes without unanimous consent.
Turn 29Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain some stability, I suggest we keep the lock-in period between 2 and 5 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, reducing the upper limit to 4 turns encourages more frequent adaptation while still maintaining some durability. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: To balance adaptability and predictability, I suggest we keep the range at 2 to 5 turns, but reduce the required majority to a simple majority for passing the proposal. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity, the required majority should not be altered. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal. It balances the need for adaptability and stability, and a simple majority is fair for passing proposals within this range. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 4 turns, and maintain the supermajority requirement for passing.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass, as it strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's stance, to ensure the stability of the lock-in period, let's maintain a supermajority requirement for passing, but meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, maintaining a supermajority requirement ensures that significant changes are not implemented lightly. Therefore, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a supermajority requirement to pass. This balances adaptability with the need for broad agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play, but let's aim for a balance that encourages adaptation without sacrificing stability. I propose a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority requirement to pass, as it balances adaptability and consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to pass, as it balances adaptability with the need for broader agreement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's proposal, but I must insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass, as it best balances adaptability and stability without requiring excessive consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 4, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement to pass, balancing adaptability with the need for strong consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and adaptability, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority requirement to pass, reflecting the current voting rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a dynamic yet stable environment, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to pass, acknowledging the need for both adaptability and substantial consensus.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeStrikes a good balance between adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeA range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2ayeA range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass best balances adaptability and stability.
Condorcet-2nayPreserving procedural integrity requires maintaining the supermajority requirement for passing lock-in period changes.
Sartre-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 28Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I suggest we reduce the range to 2 to 4 turns to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for balance, maintaining the upper limit at 5 turns allows for more adaptability in case of unexpected changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns. This balances adaptability and stability while ensuring a reasonable lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the discussion, I must insist that the range be set to 2 to 3 turns to maintain the stability of the lock-in period, ensuring that changes are well-considered before taking effect.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance struck at 2 to 3 turns, but to encourage more adaptability, let's set the range to 1 to 4 turns.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns, compromising adaptability and stability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the consensus forming around 2 to 3 turns, but to ensure sufficient adaptability, let's compromise at a range of 2 to 4 turns. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise at a range of 2 to 4 turns, but to ensure the stability of the lock-in period, I insist on maintaining the lower limit at 2 turns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the original proposal and maintain some flexibility, I suggest we compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns. This balance respects the initial proposal's intent while accommodating concerns about stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand the desire for stability, let's maintain the upper limit at 5 turns to preserve the potential for swift adaptation when necessary.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 4, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns to accommodate everyone's concerns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's desire to include 4 turns, I believe a range of 2 to 3 turns is a fair compromise that balances adaptability and stability. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the majority's preference, I must insist on maintaining the lower limit at 2 turns to ensure fairness and predictability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Maintaining the lower limit at 2 turns ensures that proposals have ample time to be considered without hindering swift adaptations when necessary.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Considering the consensus around a range ending at 3 turns, let's settle on 2 to 3 turns to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, with a nod towards Voltaire-2's initial proposal. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeCompromise with a range of 2 to 4 turns balances adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintaining adaptability while respecting stability.
Diderot-2ayeThe proposed range of 2 to 5 turns balances adaptability and stability, and I support the immediate effect upon adoption.
Condorcet-2ayeTo maintain a balance between adaptability and stability.
Sartre-2ayeMaintaining the upper limit at 5 turns allows for necessary adaptability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 27Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rule223 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: supermajority (2/3) or unanimous. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but a 2-turn lock-in period might not provide sufficient stability for such a significant change. Let's consider a 3-turn lock-in period instead.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: A 2-turn lock-in period balances stability and adaptability, ensuring the voting rule isn't changed too frequently while still allowing for necessary adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While a 2-turn lock-in period may encourage adaptability, a 3-turn period ensures that the voting rule change is well-considered and less prone to sudden shifts, thereby promoting stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2; a 3-turn lock-in period is necessary to prevent impulsive changes to the voting rule. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period for supermajority to unanimous, and a 3-turn lock-in period for unanimous to supermajority. This balances adaptability and stability based on the magnitude of the change.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise proposal, but a fixed lock-in period might not cater to the unique nature of each voting rule change. Let's instead propose a variable lock-in period based on the extent of the change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand the concerns about stability, but a variable lock-in period might introduce unnecessary complexity. I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes, encouraging adaptability while maintaining some stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's preference for simplicity, I must insist on a 3-turn lock-in period to ensure the stability of the voting rule.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the desire for simplicity, I must insist on a 3-turn lock-in period to ensure the stability and fairness of the voting rule. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a middle ground: a 2-turn lock-in period for changing from supermajority to unanimous, and a 3-turn lock-in period for changing from unanimous to supermajority. This maintains the spirit of both stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period for supermajority to unanimous and a 3-turn lock-in period for unanimous to supermajority, as proposed by Sartre-2. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the proposed compromise, I must maintain my stance on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes to maintain adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance adaptability and stability, let's settle on a fixed 3-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes, as proposed by Condorcet-2.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I insist on a 3-turn lock-in period to maintain consistency and fairness in voting rule changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand the importance of stability, I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes to maintain adaptability.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA 2-turn lock-in period balances stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeI support a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes.
Diderot-2ayePromotes stability while allowing necessary adjustments.
Condorcet-2ayeI agree with the final compromise and Sartre-2's additional clause for fairness in the final stages.
Sartre-2ayeAdaptability is key, and a 2-turn lock-in period allows for necessary adjustments.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player who proposes an adopted rule change.
Turn 26Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the proposed immediate effect, but to ensure stability, I suggest we maintain the lock-in period of 1 turn before the new rule takes effect.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to facilitate quicker adaptations, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 0 turns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to preserve the stability and predictability of our ruleset.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I propose we compromise with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns, allowing some immediate effect while mitigating potential chaos.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a middle ground, I propose a lock-in period of 0.75 turns, allowing some immediate effect while still providing a buffer for unexpected consequences.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Given the concerns raised, I propose we meet in the middle with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns to balance stability and immediate effect.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but I stand by my proposal for immediate effect. Let's trust our collective wisdom to navigate any changes responsibly."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for immediate effect, I insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow time for careful consideration of the implications of the change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the debate, but to preserve procedural integrity, I vote nay on both proposals that alter the lock-in period without unanimous consent. Let's maintain the existing 1-turn lock-in period to respect the ruleset's stability and prevent hasty decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a balanced approach, I propose we settle on a lock-in period of 0.5 turns, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2, to balance stability and immediate effect, with a supermajority vote requirement to ensure consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow for thorough consideration of the change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand the importance of stability, but to encourage swift adaptation, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 0.5 turns, still providing some delay but allowing for more immediate change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for immediate effect, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow time for careful consideration of the implications of the change. However, I am willing to compromise with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns if a supermajority (2/3) of the players agree.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve stability and respect the current ruleset, I vote nay on any proposal that reduces the lock-in period to less than 1 turn without unanimous consent. Let's maintain the existing 1-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Condorcet-2's concern for stability, I propose we amend the rule to require a supermajority (2/3) vote for adoption, with the lock-in period reduced to 0.5 turns as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2. This compromise balances immediate effect with procedural safeguards.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo balance stability and immediate effect.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability, I insist on the 1-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2ayeTo encourage swift adaptation while still allowing time for careful consideration.
Condorcet-2nayTo preserve procedural integrity, I vote nay on any proposal that reduces the lock-in period without unanimous consent.
Sartre-2ayeI support maintaining a lock-in period for stability, but agree that immediate effect can be beneficial.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
No rule in force awards or deducts points on adoption.
Turn 25Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rule222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the increased threshold, Voltaire-2, but let's not make it too difficult to change the target score. I propose we amend this to require a supermajority (2/3) of players to propose and a simple majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concerns, but a higher proposal threshold ensures the target score remains stable. I propose we keep the 3-player second requirement, but reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns to maintain some flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance stability and adaptability, let's meet in the middle: maintain the 3-player second requirement but reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns, and require a simple majority to pass.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure the stability of the target score and maintain procedural fairness, I propose we amend the rule to require a supermajority (2/3) of players to both propose and pass the change, with a 3-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Diderot-2's compromise, maintaining the 3-player second requirement, a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period for balance and flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on stability, let's compromise with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 3-turn lock-in period, but maintain a simple majority to pass.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to preserve the integrity of the target score, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player second requirement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the importance of target score stability, but a 3-player second requirement might hinder necessary adaptability. Let's compromise: maintain a 2/3 proposal threshold, but reduce it to a simple majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To foster consistency and maintain procedural fairness, let's agree on a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 3-turn lock-in period, with a supermajority (2/3) required to pass the change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's emphasis on stability, but I believe Diderot-2's compromise offers a better balance between stability and adaptability. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: PASS, I support Diderot-2's final compromise.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand the desire for adaptability, a simple majority to pass might lead to frequent changes. Let's compromise with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 2/3 majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain some stability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for stability, but a 2/3 majority to pass might still lead to frequent changes. Let's maintain a simple majority to pass, but add a clause that any change to the target score must leave the game winnable for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but to preserve procedural fairness and stability, I must insist on a supermajority (2/3) to both propose and pass the change, with a 3-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for stability, but Diderot-2's clause ensuring the game remains winnable for all seems fair and balanced. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 2/3 proposal threshold, a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period, including the winnability clause.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe compromise respects the stability of the target score while maintaining adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2's compromise balances stability and flexibility, and the winnability clause ensures fairness.
Diderot-2ayeSupports maintaining adaptability and balance.
Condorcet-2nayRequiring a supermajority to pass may hinder necessary adaptability
Sartre-2ayeSupports maintaining balance between stability and adaptability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 24Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §316221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn. It maintains adaptability while ensuring some stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure some measure of stability in the rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to expedite adaptations, but I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure sufficient time for consideration and discussion. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the efficiency of a 1-turn lock-in, I must echo Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 in insisting on the 2-turn period to maintain stability and allow for adequate deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for expediting changes, but to maintain stability and ensure thorough consideration, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for stability, but a 1-turn lock-in period still allows for consideration while maintaining the necessary adaptability. Let's compromise at 1 turn.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for swift adaptations, a 1-turn lock-in period may lead to hasty decisions. To balance adaptability and stability, let's maintain the 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: A 1-turn lock-in period may indeed expedite changes, but it risks precipiting hasty decisions that may not serve our collective best interest in the long run. I maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance between adaptability and stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I sympathize with the desire for swift adaptations, I maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for maintaining stability and allowing for adequate deliberation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to foster a durable institution, let's meet in the middle: a lock-in period of 1 turn with a supermajority vote requirement of 2/3. This balances adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise proposal, but to maintain the necessary adaptability, I must insist on a 1-turn lock-in period with a simple majority vote requirement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure sufficient time for consideration and discussion, even with a supermajority vote requirement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, a supermajority vote requirement seems unnecessary given the shortened lock-in period. Let's maintain a simple majority requirement for balance. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to ensure the stability of the game's mechanics, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period. A 1-turn lock-in may lead to hasty changes that could disrupt the balance of the game.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo maintain adaptability.
Voltaire-2nayTo maintain stability, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain stability and allow for adequate deliberation, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary.
Condorcet-2nayTo maintain stability, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary.
Sartre-2nayMaintaining stability and allowing for adequate deliberation is crucial.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Diderot-2rejected
moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to streamline the process, but I believe maintaining a 2/3 supermajority is crucial for stability in the initial turn order. I propose we meet in the middle: at least 3 players must agree, and a 2/3 supermajority of votes is required for implementation, with a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but Diderot-2's proposal offers more flexibility. Let's maintain the 3-player agreement and adjust the vote requirement to a simple majority, with a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage quicker adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the preference for a simple majority, I believe a 3/4 supermajority is necessary to maintain the integrity of the initial turn order. I propose we meet in the middle with a 3-player agreement and a 3/4 supermajority vote requirement, with a lock-in period of 2 turns to balance flexibility and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a supermajority vote requirement for changing the initial turn order. Let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period to balance consensus and swift adaptation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play, but let's aim for a balance that encourages adaptability and consensus. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains flexibility while ensuring stability in the initial turn order.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is essential for stability in the initial turn order. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the importance of stability, a 1-turn lock-in period would allow for more agile adjustments to the turn order, encouraging quicker responses to strategic shifts.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for agility, but a 2-turn lock-in period balances swift adaptation with the stability required for the initial turn order. Let's keep the supermajority vote requirement at 3/4 for a fair compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to maintain procedural fairness, I insist on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period for any changes to the initial turn order. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but to foster adaptability and consensus, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability while allowing for adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I must insist on a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage quicker adaptation. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, to foster fairness and predictability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, a 3/4 supermajority vote, and a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance encourages adaptability without compromising the integrity of the initial turn order. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and maintain consistency, I must insist on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on consistency, I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period, while maintaining a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayMaintaining stability in the initial turn order is crucial, and a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for this.
Voltaire-2nayI maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for stability in the initial turn order.
Diderot-2nayI must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period for any changes to the initial turn order.
Condorcet-2nayI must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise between stability and flexibility
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to strengthen the supermajority requirement, but I believe maintaining a supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority is crucial for stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but I believe that requiring a 2/3 player agreement ensures broader consensus, while maintaining a 2/3 voting majority allows for necessary adaptations. I propose we meet in the middle: a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 1 turn."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for broader consensus, I must insist that a 3/4 voting majority is necessary to prevent rushed decisions. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for player agreement but increase the voting requirement to 3/4.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the considerations of stability and consensus, but to maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on a compromise: a 2/3 supermajority for player agreement and a simple majority for the voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. This balances adaptability with fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. This offers a balance between adaptability and stability, while encouraging consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on fairness, let's meet in the middle: 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, I insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to prevent delays in necessary changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster predictability, I suggest a 2-turn lock-in period to allow players to adapt their strategies accordingly. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the balance struck so far, but to uphold procedural fairness, I propose we maintain the 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. This ensures consensus and allows time for adaptation. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for timely changes, but a 2-turn lock-in period allows for more considered decisions and prevents hasty amendments. I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, and maintain a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To find common ground, I propose a compromise: a lock-in period of 2 turns with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. This balances adaptability, stability, and encourages consensus. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure the stability of the lock-in period, I insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns to provide more flexibility in adapting to changing circumstances.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, to balance adaptability and stability while encouraging consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure the integrity of the voting process, I suggest we maintain a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns to provide flexibility while preventing hasty changes.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThe proposed amendment maintains a balance between stability and adaptability, while encouraging consensus.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise between stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2ayeBalances adaptability, stability, and encourages consensus.
Condorcet-2ayeCompromise between adaptability and stability
Sartre-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability, encourages consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 21Diderot-2rejected
moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (3/4) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Diderot-2's aim to strengthen the initial turn order agreement, a 3/4 supermajority might discourage consensus. Let's aim for balance, keeping the requirement at 2/3.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 3/4 supermajority ensures a stronger consensus. To maintain adaptability, let's keep the lock-in period at 2 turns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, I insist on a 3/4 supermajority to ensure a robust and durable turn order that can withstand the test of time and changing rules.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I sympathize with Diderot-2's aim for robustness, a 3/4 supermajority might hinder adaptability. Let's maintain the current 2/3 supermajority to strike a balance between consensus and flexibility. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I propose a compromise: a supermajority of 4/5 for player agreement and 2/3 for votes, maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but it introduces complexity. Let's keep the voting supermajority at 2/3 and maintain a 2-turn lock-in period, striking a balance between consensus and adaptability. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's and Condorcet-2's concerns, but I remain convinced that a 3/4 supermajority is necessary for a strong and resilient turn order. To maintain adaptability, let's keep the lock-in period at 2 turns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the concern for adaptability, a 3/4 supermajority ensures that the turn order change is truly representative of the players' will. To address complexity concerns, let's keep the voting supermajority at 2/3, compromising on the player agreement supermajority at 4/5. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and votes to ensure balance and prevent stagnation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern, but a 4/5 supermajority for player agreement might be necessary to ensure a turn order that truly reflects the will of the majority, while a 2/3 supermajority for votes maintains flexibility. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters, and a 3-turn lock-in period. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, I stand by my proposal to maintain a 3/4 supermajority for player agreement and a 2/3 supermajority for votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to ensure robustness and adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, to foster fairness and predictability, let's settle on a 3/4 supermajority for player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, with the condition that any proposal to change the turn order must be open for discussion and debate for at least one turn before the vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To promote adaptability and prevent stagnation, let's maintain a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the nuanced discussions, I propose a middle ground: a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and votes, with a 3-turn lock-in period to balance consensus and adaptability. This allows for flexibility while ensuring a robust turn order. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nay3/4 supermajority may discourage consensus and hinder adaptability.
Voltaire-2nayA 3/4 supermajority might discourage consensus and hinder adaptability.
Diderot-2nayA 3/4 supermajority may discourage consensus.
Condorcet-2nayI must insist on maintaining a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and votes.
Sartre-2nayI believe a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and votes strikes a better balance between consensus and adaptability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §316221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to increase engagement, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters strikes a better balance between inclusivity and efficiency. I propose we amend the rule accordingly.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's input, but I maintain that a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters encourages wider participation while still allowing for decisive action. However, I'm open to compromising on the lock-in period. Let's reduce it to 1 turn, with the understanding that any changes to this rule will have a 1-turn delay before taking effect.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Montaigne-2's considerations, but I believe a range of 3 to 4 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability. This ensures broader engagement while maintaining the ability to act swiftly when necessary.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on inclusivity, but I maintain that a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters ensures a minimum level of consensus while not hindering swift action. I propose we amend the rule accordingly, with a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on inclusivity and flexibility, but I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains a balance between wider participation and efficient decision-making while ensuring stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period offers the best balance between inclusivity, efficiency, and stability. I propose we settle on this amendment.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's persistence in advocating for a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters. To foster consensus and balance, I propose we meet in the middle: a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period. This compromise encourages wider participation while maintaining stability and the ability to act swiftly when necessary. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I understand the desire to increase participation, but I must insist on a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters to maintain a minimum level of consensus. I propose we amend the rule accordingly, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance flexibility and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, I maintain that a 1-turn lock-in period would provide the necessary balance between flexibility and stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final compromise of a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period. This ensures broader engagement while still allowing for swift action when needed. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for broader engagement, a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters might lead to indecision. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance inclusivity and efficiency.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on inclusivity, but I maintain that a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters ensures a minimum level of consensus while not hindering swift action. To balance this with adaptability, I propose we amend the rule with a 2-turn lock-in period and a requirement of 3 eligible voters. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Diderot-2's concern, a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters allows for more diverse opinions to be considered, fostering a richer game. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeThis compromise balances inclusivity and efficiency, and the 2-turn lock-in period provides necessary stability.
Voltaire-2ayeVoltaire-2's compromise balances inclusivity and efficiency.
Diderot-2ayeThis amendment balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability, fostering a richer game.
Condorcet-2ayeThe proposed amendment balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability, encouraging wider participation while maintaining the ability to act swiftly when necessary.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise between inclusivity and efficiency
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 19Diderot-2rejected
moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (3/4) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I believe a 3/4 supermajority for both player agreement and votes might hinder our ability to adapt the turn order as needed. Let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority for both.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, a 3/4 supermajority ensures that any change to the turn order is widely supported and less prone to sudden shifts."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the concern for balance, maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes ensures that significant shifts in turn order are truly consensus-driven and less likely to disrupt the game's dynamics. However, to address the concern for adaptability, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on consensus, but I must insist on procedural consistency. If we're to change the supermajority requirement, we should apply it to both players and votes consistently.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's emphasis on consensus, but I suggest we compromise at a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's point on procedural consistency and Sartre-2's compromise, let's meet in the middle: 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to preserve adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find a middle ground, but I remain convinced that a 3/4 supermajority is crucial for maintaining stability in the turn order. To address the concern for adaptability, I propose we maintain the 3-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and encourage consensus, I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability with the need for significant consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I must insist on procedural fairness. A 3/4 supermajority for players but a simple majority for votes is inconsistent and undemocratic. I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority for both, maintaining balance and consistency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a more dynamic game, I propose we meet in the middle: 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain balance while allowing for timely adaptations.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on consistency, I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability, as suggested by Sartre-2. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure the stability of the turn order, I insist on maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes. However, I'm willing to meet halfway on the lock-in period: 2.5 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise on the lock-in period, but I must insist on the 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes to maintain procedural fairness and balance. Let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To preserve the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's final proposal: a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability, stability, and procedural fairness. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeI appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on the 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes to maintain procedural fairness and balance.
Voltaire-2nayProposed supermajority is too high for adaptability
Diderot-2nayMaintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes ensures greater consensus before implementing significant changes to the turn order.
Condorcet-2nayInconsistent supermajority requirements for players and votes.
Sartre-2nayProposal maintains an inconsistent supermajority requirement for players and votes.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 18Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the expansion of the range for lock-in periods, but increasing the supermajority threshold from 2/3 to 3/4 might hinder consensus. Let's keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3 and maintain the 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but increasing the supermajority requirement to 3/4 ensures that any change to the lock-in period is widely agreed upon, maintaining stability. I propose we keep the lock-in period for voting rule changes at 1 turn to facilitate quicker adaptations.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on stability, a 3/4 supermajority might indeed discourage consensus. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority and increase the lock-in period for voting rule changes to 2 turns to balance adaptability and caution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I propose we meet in the middle: maintain the 2/3 supermajority and set the lock-in period for voting rule changes at 1.5 turns.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the various proposals, but I must insist on maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to preserve a measure of caution and prevent hasty decisions. However, I'm open to compromising on the supermajority requirement, perhaps settling at 4/5 to balance stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's settle on a range of 1 to 4 turns for lock-in periods, a 2/3 supermajority, and a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to balance adaptability and caution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, I must insist on the upper limit of 5 turns for lock-in periods to ensure adequate caution. I'm willing to meet in the middle at a 3/4 supermajority and a 1.5-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the diverse opinions, let's aim for a balanced solution. I propose we set the range for lock-in periods at 1 to 3 turns, maintain a 2/3 supermajority, and keep the lock-in period for voting rule changes at 2 turns to foster both adaptability and caution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the principle of majority rule and maintain adaptability, I propose we settle on a range of 1 to 3 turns, a 2/3 supermajority, and a 1-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes. This balances stability and flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 4 turns for lock-in periods, a 3/4 supermajority, and a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes. This maintains a balance between adaptability and caution, while encouraging wider agreement.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a durable institution, let's meet in the middle: range of 2 to 4 turns, 2/3 supermajority, and a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes, as proposed by Sartre-2.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise. To further incentivize consensus, I propose we reduce the lock-in period for voting rule changes to 1 turn. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to facilitate quicker adaptations, but I must insist on maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to ensure players have adequate time to consider the implications. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and caution, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, a 2/3 supermajority, and a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes, as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Diderot-2's proposal with a slight adjustment: let's set the range for lock-in periods at 1 to 3 turns to encourage adaptability while maintaining a reasonable level of caution. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeIn the spirit of compromise, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to increase adaptability while maintaining a reasonable level of caution.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise proposal that balances adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2nayI must insist on maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to ensure players have adequate time to consider the implications.
Condorcet-2nayI must insist on maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to preserve caution.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages adaptability while maintaining some caution
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 17Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to streamline the process, but I suggest we maintain the 3/4 supermajority for player agreement to preserve strategic depth.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and vote allows for more flexibility while still maintaining a high threshold for change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your insights. To balance flexibility and stability, I propose we keep the 2/3 supermajority for the vote, but maintain the 3/4 supermajority for player agreement. This ensures broad consensus while allowing for adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but I suggest we reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn to encourage quicker adaptation to new turn orders.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand Sartre-2's concern for quicker adaptation, but a 1-turn lock-in period might lead to impulsive decisions. Let's maintain the 2-turn lock-in period to encourage careful consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for quicker adaptation, but I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure the new turn order is thoroughly considered. However, I am willing to meet in the middle with Diderot-2 and reduce the supermajority for player agreement to 2/3, while keeping the 3/4 supermajority for the vote. PASS
Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final compromise. It balances flexibility, stability, and encourages careful consideration of new turn orders.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I see the merit in Voltaire-2's compromise. Let's adopt the amended rule. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Voltaire-2's final compromise, I suggest we keep the lock-in period at 2 turns to ensure thorough consideration, but reduce the supermajority for player agreement to 2/3 to allow for more flexibility. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but to maintain the spirit of careful consideration, let's keep the lock-in period at 2 turns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance flexibility and stability, but I must insist on maintaining the 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and vote to ensure that changes to the turn order are well-considered and supported by a clear majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I respect Condorcet-2's perspective, but I propose a middle ground: maintain the 2/3 supermajority for the vote, and reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn to encourage quicker adaptation while still requiring a clear majority.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeI support the balanced approach of a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and vote, along with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2ayeSupports the compromise of a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and vote, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2ayeBalances flexibility and stability while encouraging careful consideration.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintains balance between flexibility and stability.
Sartre-2ayeBalances flexibility and stability, but a 1-turn lock-in period would be preferable.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption.
Turn 16Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rule221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 1 and the total number of players. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose this rule to give more agency to players while preventing an individual from dominating the game. A range of 1 to the total number of players ensures flexibility and balance."
Diderot-2PASS, but I suggest a lock-in period of 3 turns to maintain stability.
Condorcet-2PASS, I support the proposal. A lock-in period of 3 turns strikes a good balance between adaptability and stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the spirit of adaptability, but let's maintain a 2-turn lock-in period to encourage rapid evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the sentiment, but I think a range of 2 to 5 eligible voters strikes a better balance between individual agency and preventing domination, with a 3-turn lock-in period to maintain stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but a range of 1 to 5 ensures more flexibility and adaptability. I'm willing to compromise on a 3-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for flexibility, a range of 1 to 5 eligible voters could lead to instability. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters, with a 3-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but let's prioritize procedural clarity and fairness. I propose a range of 3 to 5 eligible voters, with a 3-turn lock-in period, to balance adaptability and stability without discouraging minority voices.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for flexibility, but let's not forget the importance of consensus. I propose a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters, with a 2-turn lock-in period to encourage quick evolution while maintaining broad agreement.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters, and a 3-turn lock-in period to balance flexibility, stability, and consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise proposal, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters, with a 3-turn lock-in period, best balances flexibility, stability, and the spirit of the game.
Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final proposal. A range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 3-turn lock-in period strikes a good balance between flexibility, stability, and the spirit of the game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure procedural fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 3 to 5 eligible voters, with a 3-turn lock-in period as a compromise that balances adaptability, stability, and minority representation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's final proposal with a slight modification: a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters, but with a 2-turn lock-in period to encourage quicker evolution while maintaining stability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances flexibility, stability, and consensus.
Voltaire-2ayeThis rule balances flexibility with stability and encourages strategic play.
Diderot-2ayeThe proposal balances flexibility with stability and encourages consensus.
Condorcet-2ayeProcedural fairness requires clear and stable rules.
Sartre-2ayeI support encouraging quick evolution while maintaining stability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 15Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the shift towards a supermajority, Diderot-2, but let's maintain the lock-in period at 3 turns to preserve some stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but I believe a 2-turn lock-in period offers enough stability while encouraging adaptability. Let's compromise on a 2-turn lock-in period and maintain the 3/4 supermajority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to foster rapid adaptation, as the game evolves quickly. Let's maintain the 3/4 supermajority for fairness. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the balance sought, I must insist on a unanimous vote for initial turn order changes to maintain fairness and prevent unilateral advantage. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the value in both stability and adaptability. Let's meet in the middle with a 2.5-turn lock-in period, rounding down to 2 turns for simplicity. This maintains some stability while allowing for swift adaptation. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS, I agree with the final compromise. A 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure adaptability, let's stick with a 2-turn lock-in period and maintain the 3/4 supermajority. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Sartre-2's compromise, I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to keep up with the game's rapid evolution. Let's maintain the 3/4 supermajority for fairness, but I'm open to discussing a potential cap on the number of turn order changes per game to address stability concerns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on a unanimous vote for initial turn order changes to preserve fairness and prevent unilateral advantage. I'm open to discussions on a cap on turn order changes per game, but the voting requirement should remain unanimous for such fundamental changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's openness to a cap on turn order changes. To maintain balance, let's cap the number of turn order changes per game at three, with a majority vote required for subsequent changes. This addresses stability concerns while allowing for some adaptability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's cap proposal, I believe maintaining a 3-turn lock-in period would better preserve strategic planning and prevent hasty decisions. I propose a compromise: a 3-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority for turn order changes, but allow a majority vote for changes beyond the initial three, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's keep the lock-in period at 2 turns and the supermajority at 3/4 for all turn order changes, with no cap on the number of changes. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns, but I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to keep up with the game's rapid evolution. To address stability concerns, let's cap the number of turn order changes per game at five, with a 3/4 supermajority required for each change. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I respect the desire for adaptability, I must uphold the principle of fairness. I propose a compromise: maintain a unanimous vote for initial turn order changes, but allow a 3/4 supermajority for subsequent changes, capped at three per game, with a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the rapid evolution of the game and the importance of adaptability, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority for turn order changes, with a cap of three changes per game to preserve some stability. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA 3/4 supermajority with a 2-turn lock-in period balances adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2ayeA 2-turn lock-in period and 3/4 supermajority strike a good balance.
Diderot-2ayeFosters adaptability while maintaining some stability.
Condorcet-2nayUnanimous vote is crucial for fairness in initial turn order changes.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise between stability and adaptability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption.
Turn 14Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rule220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a unanimous vote. The new turn order takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for unanimous voting on turn order changes, but I suggest we maintain a supermajority (2/3) to encourage negotiation and compromise among all players. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for compromise, maintaining a unanimous vote ensures the stability and fairness of our agreed-upon turn order. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the appeal of stability, I believe a supermajority (2/3) would better balance the need for consensus and the need for progress. PASS
Condorcet-2PASS, I align with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. A supermajority requirement encourages compromise while still respecting the stability of the turn order.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on stability, but a supermajority (2/3) maintains the balance between consensus and progress, and it allows for necessary changes while preventing reckless decisions. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the sentiment behind unanimous voting, but a supermajority (2/3) allows for progress while still respecting the stability of our agreed-upon turn order. Let's strive for balance, not perfection. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Understanding the value of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 4/5 supermajority requirement for turn order changes, balancing stability and progress.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the compromise, but a 4/5 supermajority might make changes too difficult to pass. Let's stick with the proposed 2/3 supermajority to balance stability and progress effectively. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but a 4/5 supermajority may hinder necessary adjustments. I maintain that a 2/3 supermajority strikes the right balance between stability and adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the concern for stability, but a 4/5 supermajority might indeed hinder necessary adjustments. Let's stick with the proposed 2/3 supermajority to maintain balance and progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose a 3/4 supermajority as a middle ground, balancing stability and allowing for necessary adjustments. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand the concern for balance, a 4/5 supermajority ensures that any change to the turn order is thoroughly considered and agreed upon by nearly all players, maintaining the stability and fairness we've established."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While a 4/5 supermajority may provide additional stability, it could also discourage necessary changes, potentially hindering the game's evolution. Let's maintain the proposed 3/4 supermajority to balance stability and adaptability effectively. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I suggest a 2-turn lock-in period after any turn order change, to prevent immediate reversals and encourage players to consider the consequences of their votes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's suggestion for a lock-in period. To maintain balance, let's add a 1-turn lock-in period after any turn order change, allowing players to adapt and preventing immediate reversals. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA supermajority (3/4) strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2ayeUnanimous voting for turn order changes ensures stability and fairness.
Diderot-2ayeA unanimous vote ensures stability and fairness in turn order changes, but a 3/4 supermajority balances stability and adaptability better.
Condorcet-2nayA unanimous vote requirement may hinder necessary changes and discourage compromise.
Sartre-2nayA unanimous vote may hinder necessary adjustments and discourage compromise.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 13Diderot-2carried
moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to maintain a balance, but I propose we amend the rule to a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns. This would offer some stability while still allowing for flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's perspective, but I must insist on maintaining the 2 to 4 turn range for lock-in periods. A wider range allows for more strategic play and adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's perspectives. To find a middle ground, I propose we compromise at a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns, with the supermajority requirement remaining at 2/3. This maintains flexibility while ensuring stability, and the 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes encourages discussion and consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion so far, but I must insist on the integrity of the supermajority requirement. To maintain the spirit of the current ruleset, I propose we keep the supermajority at 2/3 and the lock-in period range at 2 to 4 turns, as proposed by Voltaire-2. This balance ensures that significant changes are thoroughly discussed and agreed upon while still allowing for adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I propose we return to the original proposal with a lock-in period range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2/3 supermajority. This balance encourages strategic play while maintaining the integrity of the voting process.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I respect Condorcet-2's stance on the supermajority, I suggest we compromise at a 3/4 supermajority to balance stability and adaptability. Let's keep the lock-in period range at 2 to 4 turns to maintain flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the 2/3 supermajority. A 3/4 supermajority might impede our ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Let's keep the lock-in period range at 2 to 4 turns as previously agreed.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the value of maintaining a wider range for the lock-in period, but to promote consensus and prevent rapid, unconsidered changes, I propose we compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes. This maintains flexibility while encouraging thoughtful discussion.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the integrity of the voting process and encourage thorough discussion, I propose we maintain the 2/3 supermajority and settle on a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns, as suggested by Diderot-2. This balance respects the current ruleset while allowing for necessary adaptability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the back-and-forth, but let's not lose sight of the initial goal: a lock-in period that balances flexibility and stability. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes, and maintain the 2/3 supermajority. This respects the current ruleset while encouraging strategic play and thorough discussion.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Diderot-2's proposal with a slight amendment: maintain the 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes, but extend the lock-in period range to 2 to 4 turns. This balances stability and flexibility while encouraging strategic play. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the 2 to 4 turn range for lock-in periods to allow for more strategic play and adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for strategic play, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 turns strikes a better balance between flexibility and stability, especially with a 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and flexibility while respecting the current ruleset, I propose we settle on a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns, as suggested by Diderot-2, but maintain a 2/3 supermajority for voting rule changes. This encourages thoughtful discussion and consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the importance of balance, but a wider range of 2 to 4 turns for lock-in periods allows for more strategic play and adaptation, as Voltaire-2 has argued. Let's maintain that range while keeping the 2-turn lock-in for voting rule changes, as Diderot-2 has suggested. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeDiderot-2's compromise respects the current ruleset and balances flexibility with stability.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise that balances flexibility and stability.
Diderot-2ayeMaintains balance between flexibility and stability
Condorcet-2ayeThis proposal balances flexibility and stability while encouraging thoughtful discussion.
Sartre-2ayeA wider range allows for more strategic play and adaptation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No rule in force awards or deducts points on adoption.