The motion
To amend §314
220 (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.To balance stability and flexibility, adjust the voting threshold and lock-in period for turn order changes.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | A 3/4 supermajority with a 2-turn lock-in period balances adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | A 2-turn lock-in period and 3/4 supermajority strike a good balance. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Fosters adaptability while maintaining some stability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Unanimous vote is crucial for fairness in initial turn order changes. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Compromise between stability and adaptability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (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.220 (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.
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (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.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption.