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 a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.To balance stability and adaptability in lock-in periods.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to strengthen the supermajority requirement, but I believe maintaining a supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority is crucial for stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but I believe that requiring a 2/3 player agreement ensures broader consensus, while maintaining a 2/3 voting majority allows for necessary adaptations. I propose we meet in the middle: a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 1 turn."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for broader consensus, I must insist that a 3/4 voting majority is necessary to prevent rushed decisions. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for player agreement but increase the voting requirement to 3/4.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the considerations of stability and consensus, but to maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on a compromise: a 2/3 supermajority for player agreement and a simple majority for the voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. This balances adaptability with fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. This offers a balance between adaptability and stability, while encouraging consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on fairness, let's meet in the middle: 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, I insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to prevent delays in necessary changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster predictability, I suggest a 2-turn lock-in period to allow players to adapt their strategies accordingly. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I appreciate the balance struck so far, but to uphold procedural fairness, I propose we maintain the 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period of 2 turns. This ensures consensus and allows time for adaptation. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for timely changes, but a 2-turn lock-in period allows for more considered decisions and prevents hasty amendments. I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, and maintain a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To find common ground, I propose a compromise: a lock-in period of 2 turns with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority. This balances adaptability, stability, and encourages consensus. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to ensure the stability of the lock-in period, I insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns to provide more flexibility in adapting to changing circumstances.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period, with a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, to balance adaptability and stability while encouraging consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure the integrity of the voting process, I suggest we maintain a 2/3 supermajority for both player agreement and voting majority, with a lock-in period range of 2 to 3 turns to provide flexibility while preventing hasty changes.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The proposed amendment maintains a balance between stability and adaptability, while encouraging consensus. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise between stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Balances adaptability, stability, and encourages consensus. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Compromise between adaptability and stability |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances adaptability and stability, encourages consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 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 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.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 a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.