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 at least 3 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 1 turn.To balance adaptability and stability in turn order modifications.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to streamline the process, but I believe maintaining a 2/3 supermajority is crucial for stability in the initial turn order. I propose we meet in the middle: at least 3 players must agree, and a 2/3 supermajority of votes is required for implementation, with a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but Diderot-2's proposal offers more flexibility. Let's maintain the 3-player agreement and adjust the vote requirement to a simple majority, with a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage quicker adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the preference for a simple majority, I believe a 3/4 supermajority is necessary to maintain the integrity of the initial turn order. I propose we meet in the middle with a 3-player agreement and a 3/4 supermajority vote requirement, with a lock-in period of 2 turns to balance flexibility and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a supermajority vote requirement for changing the initial turn order. Let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period to balance consensus and swift adaptation.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play, but let's aim for a balance that encourages adaptability and consensus. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains flexibility while ensuring stability in the initial turn order.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is essential for stability in the initial turn order. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the importance of stability, a 1-turn lock-in period would allow for more agile adjustments to the turn order, encouraging quicker responses to strategic shifts.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for agility, but a 2-turn lock-in period balances swift adaptation with the stability required for the initial turn order. Let's keep the supermajority vote requirement at 3/4 for a fair compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to maintain procedural fairness, I insist on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period for any changes to the initial turn order. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but to foster adaptability and consensus, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period.
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 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability while allowing for adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I must insist on a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage quicker adaptation. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 1-turn lock-in period. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, to foster fairness and predictability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, a 3/4 supermajority vote, and a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance encourages adaptability without compromising the integrity of the initial turn order. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and maintain consistency, I must insist on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period. Let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, and a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on consistency, I propose we settle on a 2/3 supermajority vote with a 2-turn lock-in period, while maintaining a range of 2 to 3 players required to agree, to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Maintaining stability in the initial turn order is crucial, and a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for this. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | I maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for stability in the initial turn order. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period for any changes to the initial turn order. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Compromise between stability and flexibility |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.