The motion
To add a new rule
221 (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.To encourage strategic voting and adaptability.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances flexibility, stability, and consensus. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | This rule balances flexibility with stability and encourages strategic play. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | The proposal balances flexibility with stability and encourages consensus. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Procedural fairness requires clear and stable rules. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I support encouraging quick evolution while maintaining stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
221 (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.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.