The motion
To amend §314
220 (mutable) 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 balance adaptability and stability in turn order changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate the simplification, Voltaire-2, but to maintain stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's desire for stability, removing the lock-in period encourages players to reach consensus more swiftly, thus maintaining adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives, but to ensure the stability of the turn order, I insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's concern for stability. Let's maintain the 2-turn lock-in period and keep the supermajority requirement to ensure consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage swift consensus, while still providing some resistance to sudden changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Sartre-2's compromise, let's meet in the middle with a 1.5-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the various proposals, but to maintain strategic depth and adaptability, I must insist on removing the lock-in period entirely.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, a lock-in period is crucial for the stability of the game. I propose we compromise with a 1-turn lock-in period, as suggested by Sartre-2.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure that changes to the turn order are thoughtful and considered.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period, as proposed by Diderot-2, but lower the supermajority requirement to a simple majority to encourage more frequent adjustments to the turn order.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3 to ensure broad agreement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority vote for turn order changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for turn order changes ensures stability. Let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose a compromise: a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote for turn order changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage continuous adaptation while respecting stability, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote, as proposed by Condorcet-2.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | To maintain stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Stability is crucial for a durable game. Maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures that changes to the turn order are well-considered. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To maintain stability, I insist on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | A 1-turn lock-in period encourages swift consensus while maintaining some stability. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I support a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote for turn order changes. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.