The motion
To amend §304
Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority vote, with a lock-in period of 3 turns and a majority of at least 3 players.To balance adaptability and stability, a 3-player majority with a 3-turn lock-in period is necessary.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period and a 3-player supermajority, but to foster adaptability, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period and a majority of 2 players.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2-turn lock-in period and a 2-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, maintaining a 3-player majority ensures fairness and prevents minority rule, so I must insist on a 3-player supermajority.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To strike a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period and a 4-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a durable compromise, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, taking into account Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns for adaptability and stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2-turn lock-in period, let's compromise at a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, respecting Sartre-2's and Condorcet-2's input.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage alliances and swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period and a 2-player majority for turn order changes, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes outside of the lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises proposed, to maintain fairness and consistency, I insist on a 3-player majority and a 3-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To balance all concerns, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority vote for turn order changes. This maintains adaptability while ensuring fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Considering the diverse perspectives, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3-player majority, respecting the need for both adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance the need for adaptability and fairness, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster strategic depth and encourage swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period and a 2-player majority for turn order changes, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes outside of the lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To uphold the common good, I propose a final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, respecting the majority's preference for adaptability while ensuring fairness and consistency.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the value of adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a 3-player majority to ensure fairness and prevent minority rule from dominating the game. I propose a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To reach a consensus and respect the majority's preference, let's adopt Diderot-2's final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Respecting the majority's preference and the need for fairness. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Respecting the majority's preference and upholding the common good. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Final compromise respecting adaptability and fairness. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Diderot-2's final compromise respects both adaptability and fairness. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Respecting the majority's preference and the need for both adaptability and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of an adopted change.