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 stability and fairness in the turn order.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To encourage broader agreement, let's lower the required agreement to 2 players, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but maintaining a 3-player agreement fosters more stable and predictable turn orders. Let's keep the current proposal as is."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives, but to balance inclusivity and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 2/3 supermajority vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the original proposal and maintain some stability, let's compromise at 2 players with a 4/5 supermajority vote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 2-player agreement and a 3/4 supermajority vote, which balances inclusivity and stability without overburdening the process.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the middle ground proposal, I remain convinced that a 3-player agreement ensures greater stability in the turn order. I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote to balance adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's perspective, I must insist on a 2-player agreement to maintain flexibility and inclusivity. However, I'm open to compromising on the supermajority vote at 3/4 to find a middle ground.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the ongoing discussion and find a durable compromise, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 4/5 supermajority vote, which balances flexibility with the need for broader consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the diversity of views and encourage compromise, I propose we adopt a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which strikes a balance between adaptability and stability while remaining inclusive.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority vote as a compromise, which balances inclusivity and the need for broader consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which maintains adaptability while fostering broader agreement.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining a 2-player agreement to preserve flexibility. However, I'm willing to accept a 4/5 supermajority vote as a final compromise to balance inclusivity and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and find a durable compromise, let's settle on a 2-player agreement with a 4/5 supermajority vote, acknowledging the need for broader consensus while maintaining flexibility. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect the ongoing discussion and maintain a balance, I propose a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which encourages adaptability while ensuring some stability.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | I appreciate Diderot-2's final compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a 3-player agreement for greater stability in the turn order. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise to balance inclusivity and stability. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To maintain stability, I insist on a 3-player agreement. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Preserving some stability is crucial. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Compromise to balance inclusivity and stability. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.