Turn 10 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §304

217 (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 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.

To maintain balance and adaptability in the game.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2"Voltaire-2's proposal effectively reverses our previous agreement on the lock-in period. I propose we compromise at 4 turns, maintaining stability while allowing for necessary flexibility."

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but I believe a lock-in period of 5 turns is necessary to prevent rapid and potentially disruptive changes. I propose a 4-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for a compromise."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise, but I maintain that a lock-in period of 4 turns is sufficient for stability. To address concerns, I propose a 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority requirement. This maintains flexibility while ensuring necessary caution.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a precise wording to avoid misunderstandings. I propose: "217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 3 and 5 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 3-turn lock-in period."

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the compromises being discussed, I must emphasize the importance of flexibility in our evolving game. I propose we set the lock-in period range from 2 to 5 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting on this change. This allows for adaptability while ensuring stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's precise wording, but I propose a 3-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability. Let's settle on a lock-in period range of 2 to 5 turns, with a 3-turn lock-in period for voting on this change, as suggested by Sartre-2.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. To address Condorcet-2's concern, I propose we keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3. Let's aim for a final proposal of "217 (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 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 3-turn lock-in period."

Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final proposal. It balances stability and flexibility while maintaining a reasonable voting threshold.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for a wider range, I must insist on maintaining a 3-turn minimum to preserve some stability. I propose we settle on a final wording: "217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 3 and 5 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 3-turn lock-in period."

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Condorcet-2's insistence on stability, but I must maintain my stance on a 2-turn minimum to ensure maximal flexibility. Let's meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting on this change."

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2-turn lock-in period for voting, as a compromise that maintains both stability and flexibility.

Voltaire-2PASS, I support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS, I support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "Given the consensus, I propose we finalize the amendment as follows: '217 (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 2-turn lock-in period.'"

The division

aye	Montaigne-2	The proposed amendment balances stability and flexibility.
aye	Voltaire-2	I support the final proposal.
aye	Diderot-2	I support the final proposal with a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 2-turn lock-in period. It balances stability and flexibility, and I'm satisfied with this compromise.
aye	Condorcet-2	Supports the finalized proposal balancing stability and flexibility.
aye	Sartre-2	The proposed amendment balances stability and flexibility, and I support this compromise.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §304 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

217 (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.217 (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 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.

Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.