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 a supermajority (3/4) of the 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 3 turns.To maintain a fair and stable turn order while allowing for adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I believe a 3/4 supermajority for both player agreement and votes might hinder our ability to adapt the turn order as needed. Let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority for both.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, a 3/4 supermajority ensures that any change to the turn order is widely supported and less prone to sudden shifts."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the concern for balance, maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes ensures that significant shifts in turn order are truly consensus-driven and less likely to disrupt the game's dynamics. However, to address the concern for adaptability, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on consensus, but I must insist on procedural consistency. If we're to change the supermajority requirement, we should apply it to both players and votes consistently.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's emphasis on consensus, but I suggest we compromise at a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's point on procedural consistency and Sartre-2's compromise, let's meet in the middle: 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to preserve adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find a middle ground, but I remain convinced that a 3/4 supermajority is crucial for maintaining stability in the turn order. To address the concern for adaptability, I propose we maintain the 3-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and encourage consensus, I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability with the need for significant consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I must insist on procedural fairness. A 3/4 supermajority for players but a simple majority for votes is inconsistent and undemocratic. I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority for both, maintaining balance and consistency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a more dynamic game, I propose we meet in the middle: 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain balance while allowing for timely adaptations.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on consistency, I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability, as suggested by Sartre-2. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure the stability of the turn order, I insist on maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes. However, I'm willing to meet halfway on the lock-in period: 2.5 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise on the lock-in period, but I must insist on the 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes to maintain procedural fairness and balance. Let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To preserve the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne-2's final proposal: a 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability, stability, and procedural fairness. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on the 2/3 supermajority for both players and votes to maintain procedural fairness and balance. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Proposed supermajority is too high for adaptability |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for both players and votes ensures greater consensus before implementing significant changes to the turn order. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Inconsistent supermajority requirements for players and votes. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Proposal maintains an inconsistent supermajority requirement for players and votes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.