The motion
To amend §314
Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.To ensure broader consensus and stability in the turn order.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to simplify the rule, but maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes. Let's keep these safeguards in place.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Diderot-2's proposal, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority is crucial for maintaining stability. I propose a compromise: let's keep the 2/3 supermajority but reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn. This allows for quicker adaptations while still ensuring stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your concerns, but I maintain that simplifying the rule to a 3-player agreement will foster more dynamic turn order adjustments while still ensuring fairness. Let's keep the lock-in period to ensure stability, but reduce it to 1 turn as a compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's keep the 2/3 supermajority and a lock-in period of 2 turns. The supermajority ensures broad consensus, and the lock-in period prevents hasty changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but to encourage consensus and prevent deadlocks, let's adopt a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period as a compromise. This balance allows for flexibility while maintaining stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I propose a 4-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period. This ensures broader consensus while allowing for timely adjustments.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances the need for consensus with the desire for adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period to maximize adaptability without sacrificing fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and prevent excessive volatility, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period, as Voltaire-2 suggested.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to encourage consensus, I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's final compromise: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance allows for flexibility while maintaining stability and preventing deadlocks.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 3-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain stability and encourage adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to encourage swift adaptation, I propose a 0-turn lock-in period. Let's keep the 3-player agreement to foster consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must reiterate my stance on a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period. This balance ensures fairness while maximizing adaptability, which is crucial in our ever-changing game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and protect against hasty changes, I propose a 4-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance ensures broader consensus while allowing for timely adjustments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance consensus and adaptability, I propose a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to simplify the rule, but maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.