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 immediately upon adoption.To facilitate quicker adaptations and maintain stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the proposed immediate effect, but to ensure stability, I suggest we maintain the lock-in period of 1 turn before the new rule takes effect.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to facilitate quicker adaptations, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 0 turns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to preserve the stability and predictability of our ruleset.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I propose we compromise with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns, allowing some immediate effect while mitigating potential chaos.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a middle ground, I propose a lock-in period of 0.75 turns, allowing some immediate effect while still providing a buffer for unexpected consequences.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Given the concerns raised, I propose we meet in the middle with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns to balance stability and immediate effect.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but I stand by my proposal for immediate effect. Let's trust our collective wisdom to navigate any changes responsibly."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for immediate effect, I insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow time for careful consideration of the implications of the change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the debate, but to preserve procedural integrity, I vote nay on both proposals that alter the lock-in period without unanimous consent. Let's maintain the existing 1-turn lock-in period to respect the ruleset's stability and prevent hasty decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a balanced approach, I propose we settle on a lock-in period of 0.5 turns, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2, to balance stability and immediate effect, with a supermajority vote requirement to ensure consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow for thorough consideration of the change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand the importance of stability, but to encourage swift adaptation, I propose we reduce the lock-in period to 0.5 turns, still providing some delay but allowing for more immediate change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for immediate effect, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to ensure stability and allow time for careful consideration of the implications of the change. However, I am willing to compromise with a lock-in period of 0.5 turns if a supermajority (2/3) of the players agree.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve stability and respect the current ruleset, I vote nay on any proposal that reduces the lock-in period to less than 1 turn without unanimous consent. Let's maintain the existing 1-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Condorcet-2's concern for stability, I propose we amend the rule to require a supermajority (2/3) vote for adoption, with the lock-in period reduced to 0.5 turns as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2. This compromise balances immediate effect with procedural safeguards.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To balance stability and immediate effect. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain stability, I insist on the 1-turn lock-in period. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To encourage swift adaptation while still allowing time for careful consideration. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To preserve procedural integrity, I vote nay on any proposal that reduces the lock-in period without unanimous consent. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I support maintaining a lock-in period for stability, but agree that immediate effect can be beneficial. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 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 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.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 immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 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 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 immediately upon adoption.
No rule in force awards or deducts points on adoption.