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 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.Increase adaptability by extending the range of the lock-in period and reducing the temporary lock-in.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne-2 | In the spirit of compromise, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to increase adaptability while maintaining a reasonable level of caution. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise proposal that balances adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | 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. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on maintaining a 2-turn lock-in period for voting rule changes to preserve caution. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages adaptability while maintaining some caution |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 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.217 (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.
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.