The motion
To add a new rule
222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.To allow for more flexible scoring thresholds, increasing the number of required seconds for proposals involving target score changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the increased threshold, Voltaire-2, but let's not make it too difficult to change the target score. I propose we amend this to require a supermajority (2/3) of players to propose and a simple majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concerns, but a higher proposal threshold ensures the target score remains stable. I propose we keep the 3-player second requirement, but reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns to maintain some flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance stability and adaptability, let's meet in the middle: maintain the 3-player second requirement but reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns, and require a simple majority to pass.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure the stability of the target score and maintain procedural fairness, I propose we amend the rule to require a supermajority (2/3) of players to both propose and pass the change, with a 3-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Diderot-2's compromise, maintaining the 3-player second requirement, a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period for balance and flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's emphasis on stability, let's compromise with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 3-turn lock-in period, but maintain a simple majority to pass.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to preserve the integrity of the target score, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player second requirement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the importance of target score stability, but a 3-player second requirement might hinder necessary adaptability. Let's compromise: maintain a 2/3 proposal threshold, but reduce it to a simple majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To foster consistency and maintain procedural fairness, let's agree on a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 3-turn lock-in period, with a supermajority (2/3) required to pass the change.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's emphasis on stability, but I believe Diderot-2's compromise offers a better balance between stability and adaptability. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: PASS, I support Diderot-2's final compromise.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand the desire for adaptability, a simple majority to pass might lead to frequent changes. Let's compromise with a 2/3 proposal threshold and a 2/3 majority to pass, with a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain some stability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for stability, but a 2/3 majority to pass might still lead to frequent changes. Let's maintain a simple majority to pass, but add a clause that any change to the target score must leave the game winnable for all players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but to preserve procedural fairness and stability, I must insist on a supermajority (2/3) to both propose and pass the change, with a 3-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for stability, but Diderot-2's clause ensuring the game remains winnable for all seems fair and balanced. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment with a 2/3 proposal threshold, a simple majority to pass, and a 2-turn lock-in period, including the winnability clause.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The compromise respects the stability of the target score while maintaining adaptability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Voltaire-2's compromise balances stability and flexibility, and the winnability clause ensures fairness. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Supports maintaining adaptability and balance. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Requiring a supermajority to pass may hinder necessary adaptability |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports maintaining balance between stability and adaptability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.