The motion
To add a new rule
226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.To ensure stability and prevent sudden changes, let's introduce a cap on the voting rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to balance stability and adaptability, but I must insist on a fixed 3/4 supermajority to maintain durable institutions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, a flexible voting threshold allows us to adapt to changing circumstances."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the balance Voltaire-2 aims for, but to ensure consistency, I propose we settle on a fixed 4/5 supermajority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must insist on a fixed 2/3 supermajority to maintain procedural fairness and consistency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a voting rule with a range of 3/4 to 5/6, allowing for adaptability while maintaining a high threshold for stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's flexibility proposal, I suggest we compromise at a 3/4 supermajority range (3/4 to 4/5), balancing stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a range of 2/3 to 5/6 for the voting rule.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise Voltaire-2 and Montaigne-2 have reached, but to ensure a fair and consistent voting threshold, I insist on a fixed 4/5 supermajority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and flexibility, I propose a compromise: a fixed 4/5 supermajority with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains a high threshold for change while allowing for timely adaptations.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a range of 3/4 to 5/6 for the voting rule, with a 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule, with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to encourage swift adaptations, I propose we settle on a range of 2/3 to 5/6 for the voting rule with a 1-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the various proposals, but to maintain fairness and consistency, I propose we settle on a fixed 4/5 supermajority with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, and considering the ongoing dialogue, I propose we settle on a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule with a 2-turn lock-in period, maintaining a high threshold for change while allowing for timely adaptations.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule, with a 1-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability and stability, and should be acceptable to most parties.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Compromise is key, and this proposal balances adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To maintain adaptability and encourage consensus. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | The proposed range balances adaptability and stability, and the 1-turn lock-in period encourages timely adaptations. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | A fixed range does not guarantee stability; I insist on a fixed 4/5 supermajority. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances adaptability and stability, and should be acceptable to most parties. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.