The motion
To amend §316
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 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes 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 broader consensus and coalition-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to increase engagement, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters strikes a better balance between inclusivity and efficiency. I propose we amend the rule accordingly.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's input, but I maintain that a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters encourages wider participation while still allowing for decisive action. However, I'm open to compromising on the lock-in period. Let's reduce it to 1 turn, with the understanding that any changes to this rule will have a 1-turn delay before taking effect.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's and Montaigne-2's considerations, but I believe a range of 3 to 4 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability. This ensures broader engagement while maintaining the ability to act swiftly when necessary.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on inclusivity, but I maintain that a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters ensures a minimum level of consensus while not hindering swift action. I propose we amend the rule accordingly, with a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on inclusivity and flexibility, but I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains a balance between wider participation and efficient decision-making while ensuring stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I believe a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 1-turn lock-in period offers the best balance between inclusivity, efficiency, and stability. I propose we settle on this amendment.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's persistence in advocating for a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters. To foster consensus and balance, I propose we meet in the middle: a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period. This compromise encourages wider participation while maintaining stability and the ability to act swiftly when necessary. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I understand the desire to increase participation, but I must insist on a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters to maintain a minimum level of consensus. I propose we amend the rule accordingly, with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance flexibility and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, I maintain that a 1-turn lock-in period would provide the necessary balance between flexibility and stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's final compromise of a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period. This ensures broader engagement while still allowing for swift action when needed. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for broader engagement, a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters might lead to indecision. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 eligible voters with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance inclusivity and efficiency.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on inclusivity, but I maintain that a fixed requirement of 3 eligible voters ensures a minimum level of consensus while not hindering swift action. To balance this with adaptability, I propose we amend the rule with a 2-turn lock-in period and a requirement of 3 eligible voters. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Diderot-2's concern, a range of 2 to 4 eligible voters allows for more diverse opinions to be considered, fostering a richer game. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | This compromise balances inclusivity and efficiency, and the 2-turn lock-in period provides necessary stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Voltaire-2's compromise balances inclusivity and efficiency. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | This amendment balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability, fostering a richer game. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | The proposed amendment balances inclusivity, efficiency, and stability, encouraging wider participation while maintaining the ability to act swiftly when necessary. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Compromise between inclusivity and efficiency |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §316 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 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.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 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes 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 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.