The motion
To amend §304
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.To encourage strategic gameplay, let's increase the target score range.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain balance, let's cap the target score at 100, as it allows room for adjustments without excessive volatility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's caution, but to encourage strategic gameplay, let's raise the cap to 125. This allows for more complex maneuvers and alliances.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's desire for complexity, I must insist on maintaining the target score at 100 to preserve the game's accessibility and balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve balance while allowing some strategic depth, I propose we compromise at a target score of 110.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but to foster a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle at a target score of 105.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's middle-ground proposals, I suggest we compromise at a target score of 107, maintaining balance while allowing for some strategic depth.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster adaptability and encourage alliances, I propose we raise the target score to 120, closer to Condorcet-2's suggestion, and adjust the range to 90 to 130 to allow for further adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to ensure the game remains accessible and fair, I must insist on maintaining the target score at 100. A range of 90 to 130, as proposed by Voltaire-2, introduces too much volatility and complexity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance accessibility and strategic depth, I propose a range of 95 to 115, with the target score at 105. This allows for adjustments while maintaining a manageable target.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To maintain balance and encourage adaptability, let's settle on a range of 100 to 120 with a target score of 110, compromising between Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to preserve balance, let's meet at a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's latest compromise, but to encourage alliances and long-term strategies, I propose we settle on a range of 105 to 125 with a target score of 115. This maintains balance while allowing for more complex gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for strategic depth, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining the target score at 100. A range of 105 to 125, as proposed by Voltaire-2, introduces unnecessary complexity and risks unbalancing the game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance accessibility and strategic depth, let's compromise at a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105, closer to Diderot-2's suggestion but allowing for some adjustments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to find a durable compromise that respects all perspectives, let's settle on a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105, as proposed by Condorcet-2 and supported by Montaigne-2. This maintains balance, allows for some strategic depth, and accommodates both accessibility and adaptability concerns.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | I support the compromise that balances accessibility, strategic depth, and adaptability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Maintaining the target score at 100 ensures balance and accessibility. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Respecting Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's compromise, and maintaining balance while allowing some strategic depth. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | The proposed range introduces too much volatility and risks unbalancing the game. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Respects all perspectives and finds a durable compromise |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 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 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the player who voted against an adopted change.