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 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.To encourage broader consensus in modifying the turn order.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve strategic depth and encourage debate, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to lower the requirement to a 2/3 supermajority of players for agreeing on the new turn order. However, I propose we maintain the lock-in period at 2 turns for stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, I must insist on maintaining the lock-in period at 1 turn to encourage swift adaptation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for swift adaptation, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures that changes to the turn order are carefully considered and not impulsively decided.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I support maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period as it ensures that decisions are well-reasoned and not impulsive, as Diderot-2 aptly points out. However, I propose we compromise on the player requirement: instead of a 2/3 supermajority, let's require agreement from at least 3 players to introduce a new turn order proposal. This balances swift adaptation with strategic consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the need for adaptability and stability, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2/3 supermajority of players for agreeing on the new turn order, and a 2-turn lock-in period.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1-turn lock-in period, balancing swift adaptation and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I respect the compromise, I insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement requirement and a 2-turn lock-in period, balancing the need for swift adaptation and the importance of strategic consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Condorcet-2 and Montaigne-2, but I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain the stability of the turn order. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In response to Condorcet-2's compromise, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain adaptability while acknowledging the need for strategic consideration. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: To ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period, even with a 3-player agreement requirement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To balance all perspectives, I propose a compromise: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1.5-turn lock-in period, rounded down to 1 turn. This maintains swift adaptation while respecting strategic consideration and stability. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, but to maintain a clear distinction between swift adaptation and strategic consideration, I propose we round up to a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Compromise balances swift adaptation and strategic consideration. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise between swift adaptation and strategic consideration. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Balances swift adaptation with strategic consideration. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports the compromise proposed by Condorcet-2 and Montaigne-2 |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §314 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon 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 turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.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 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.