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 2 and 4 turns. 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 lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.To balance adaptability and stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain some stability, I suggest we keep the lock-in period between 2 and 5 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, reducing the upper limit to 4 turns encourages more frequent adaptation while still maintaining some durability. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: To balance adaptability and predictability, I suggest we keep the range at 2 to 5 turns, but reduce the required majority to a simple majority for passing the proposal. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity, the required majority should not be altered. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal. It balances the need for adaptability and stability, and a simple majority is fair for passing proposals within this range. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 4 turns, and maintain the supermajority requirement for passing.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass, as it strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's stance, to ensure the stability of the lock-in period, let's maintain a supermajority requirement for passing, but meet in the middle with a range of 2 to 3 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, maintaining a supermajority requirement ensures that significant changes are not implemented lightly. Therefore, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a supermajority requirement to pass. This balances adaptability with the need for broad agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play, but let's aim for a balance that encourages adaptation without sacrificing stability. I propose a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority requirement to pass, as it balances adaptability and consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to pass, as it balances adaptability with the need for broader agreement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's proposal, but I must insist on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass, as it best balances adaptability and stability without requiring excessive consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 4, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement to pass, balancing adaptability with the need for strong consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and adaptability, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority requirement to pass, reflecting the current voting rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a dynamic yet stable environment, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to pass, acknowledging the need for both adaptability and substantial consensus.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Strikes a good balance between adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | A range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | A range of 2 to 4 turns with a simple majority to pass best balances adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Preserving procedural integrity requires maintaining the supermajority requirement for passing lock-in period changes. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances adaptability and stability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 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 2 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.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. 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 lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.