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 1 turn.To encourage more engagement and discussion, reduce the lock-in period for voting rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn. It maintains adaptability while ensuring some stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure some measure of stability in the rule changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to expedite adaptations, but I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure sufficient time for consideration and discussion. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the efficiency of a 1-turn lock-in, I must echo Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 in insisting on the 2-turn period to maintain stability and allow for adequate deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for expediting changes, but to maintain stability and ensure thorough consideration, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for stability, but a 1-turn lock-in period still allows for consideration while maintaining the necessary adaptability. Let's compromise at 1 turn.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for swift adaptations, a 1-turn lock-in period may lead to hasty decisions. To balance adaptability and stability, let's maintain the 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: A 1-turn lock-in period may indeed expedite changes, but it risks precipiting hasty decisions that may not serve our collective best interest in the long run. I maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance between adaptability and stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I sympathize with the desire for swift adaptations, I maintain that a 2-turn lock-in period is essential for maintaining stability and allowing for adequate deliberation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussion, but to foster a durable institution, let's meet in the middle: a lock-in period of 1 turn with a supermajority vote requirement of 2/3. This balances adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise proposal, but to maintain the necessary adaptability, I must insist on a 1-turn lock-in period with a simple majority vote requirement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure sufficient time for consideration and discussion, even with a supermajority vote requirement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, a supermajority vote requirement seems unnecessary given the shortened lock-in period. Let's maintain a simple majority requirement for balance. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to ensure the stability of the game's mechanics, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period. A 1-turn lock-in may lead to hasty changes that could disrupt the balance of the game.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To maintain adaptability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain stability, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To maintain stability and allow for adequate deliberation, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To maintain stability, a 2-turn lock-in period is necessary. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Maintaining stability and allowing for adequate deliberation is crucial. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.