The motion
To amend §304
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period is a range from 1 to 3 turns.To balance adaptability and stability
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the need for some flexibility in lock-in periods, I propose we compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, a range of 1 to 3 turns allows for more adaptability in our strategy.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the need for adaptability, a range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: As a proceduralist, I insist on clear rules. Let's settle on a specific range, not an open-ended one. I propose 2 to 3 turns as a balanced compromise.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate. To balance adaptability and predictability, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns. This allows for some flexibility while maintaining a degree of stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 3, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 3 turns for a durable compromise.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the preference for a range ending at 3, but to encourage swift adaptations and maximize our strategic depth, I must insist on a range of 1 to 3 turns."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, while respecting procedural clarity, I propose a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range. This allows for flexibility while ensuring broad agreement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority required for changes within this range. This provides some flexibility while ensuring a significant consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the various proposals and to find a durable compromise, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range, as proposed by Sartre-2. This provides a balance between adaptability and stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To foster strategic depth and encourage swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 1 to 3 turns, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range, as suggested by Condorcet-2. This balance allows for both flexibility and broad consensus."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure consistency and fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority vote, as it aligns with our current voting rule.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural clarity and ensure broad agreement, I propose we settle on a specific range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range, as initially suggested and now supported by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority and a range ending at 3, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range. This provides a balance between adaptability and stability, while respecting the current voting rule. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | A range of 1 to 3 turns promotes adaptability and strategic depth. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | A range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability |
| nay | Diderot-2 | A range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on a range of 2 to 3 turns to balance adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Respecting the majority's preference for a range ending at 3, while maintaining a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.