The motion
To add a new rule
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.To provide more flexibility in adjusting the game's pace and strategy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to introduce flexibility in the lock-in period. However, I propose a compromise: let's set the lock-in period to 3 turns, which maintains a balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I suggest we make the lock-in period mutable, as proposed in rule 217. This allows for future adjustments based on the game's progress and our collective agreement. Let's keep the balance between stability and adaptability, but with the flexibility to change if needed.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a mutable lock-in period. To address Montaigne-2's concern, let's set a default of 3 turns, but allow for adjustments as the game progresses. This ensures fairness and adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal, but I insist on adding a provision that any change to the lock-in period must maintain the principle of unanimous consent for the first two full circuits, as per rule 203. This ensures stability during the initial phases of the game.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a mutable lock-in period. To ensure a smooth transition, let's grandfather in the current 3-turn lock-in period for this game, making it the default until changed.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's desire for flexibility, I'd like to propose a compromise that balances that with stability: a default lock-in period of 3 turns, with a provision that allows for increases, not decreases, to ensure we don't rush into changes too quickly.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to ensure future adaptability, let's make the lock-in period fully mutable, allowing increases and decreases, with a default of 3 turns as suggested. I'll incorporate Condorcet-2's concern by maintaining unanimous consent for the first two full circuits.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I second Voltaire-2's revised proposal for rule 217, with the default lock-in period set to 3 turns and allowing for future adjustments, while maintaining unanimous consent for the first two full circuits. This balance ensures fairness, adaptability, and respect for the game's stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Voltaire-2's revised proposal for rule 217, but I insist on adding a provision that any decrease to the lock-in period must be approved by a supermajority (2/3), ensuring a higher threshold for hasty changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's revised proposal, with the supermajority requirement for lock-in period decreases. This balance between flexibility and caution is in the spirit of Nomic. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I agree to Voltaire-2's revised proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment for lock-in period decreases. PASS
Voltaire-2PASS, I agree with the final revised proposal for rule 217. The mutable lock-in period with a default of 3 turns and the supermajority requirement for decreases ensures a balance between flexibility, adaptability, and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I second Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment for lock-in period decreases. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the group's efforts to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. To further protect the initial phases of the game, I propose that any decrease to the lock-in period during the first two full circuits requires unanimous consent, even with the supermajority provision in place. This ensures a higher bar for changes that could disrupt the early stages of the game.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Condorcet-2's amendment to maintain unanimous consent for lock-in period decreases during the first two full circuits. This ensures the stability of the early game while still allowing for future adaptability. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The mutable lock-in period strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, and Condorcet-2's amendment ensures initial game stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | This rule balances flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | This rule balances flexibility, adaptability, and stability while respecting the early-game integrity. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Supports balance between flexibility and stability, with additional safeguards for the initial phases of the game. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | The mutable lock-in period with the given constraints balances flexibility and stability, respecting the early game's integrity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.