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 encourage consensus and stability in the turn order.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I suggest we increase the required agreement to 4 players, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to ensure swift adaptation, let's maintain the 3-player agreement. I propose we meet in the middle at a 4-turn lock-in period instead.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, to ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on stability, but to preserve procedural fairness, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To promote fluidity and consensus, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, balancing adaptability with stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 3-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period as a compromise.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement to ensure the fairness and predictability of the turn order.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and consistency, I must maintain my insistence on a 3-player agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To facilitate swift adaptation without compromising fairness, let's maintain the 3-player agreement and reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn, a compromise between Voltaire-2's proposal and Diderot-2's concern.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, as proposed by Voltaire-2, to foster both stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a 3-player agreement and a 1-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement to ensure the fairness and predictability of the turn order, even if it means keeping the lock-in period at 2 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness and consistency, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, as a balanced compromise between the current rule and Voltaire-2's proposal.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To bridge our positions, let's adopt a 3-player agreement and a 1-turn lock-in period, allowing for swift adaptation while preserving fairness and predictability.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Compromise is necessary to maintain adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on keeping the required agreement at 3 players. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To balance adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To preserve procedural fairness, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Swift adaptation should not compromise fairness. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.