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 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.To balance stability and adaptability, I propose reducing the lock-in period for voting rule changes to 2 turns.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Diderot-2's compromise respects the current ruleset and balances flexibility with stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise that balances flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Maintains balance between flexibility and stability |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | This proposal balances flexibility and stability while encouraging thoughtful discussion. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | A wider range allows for more strategic play and adaptation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-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 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.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 lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-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 after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
No rule in force awards or deducts points on adoption.