The motion
To amend §314
227 (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, a broader consensus is needed for turn order changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a balance between adaptability and stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns and maintain the 2/3 supermajority requirement for voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to encourage swift adaptations, let's remove the lock-in period and require only a simple majority vote.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures fairness and prevents impulsive changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, let's compromise with a 1-turn lock-in period and maintain the 2/3 supermajority vote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage experimentation and evolution, let's remove the lock-in period altogether and require a 3/4 supermajority vote, as a stronger consensus will ensure more robust changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve a measured approach, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and retain the 2/3 supermajority requirement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, to truly encourage swift adaptations, let's remove the lock-in period and settle for a simple majority vote. I'm open to discussion on the supermajority requirement, but let's prioritize adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's enthusiasm for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to preserve fairness and prevent hasty decisions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness and prevent hasty changes, let's maintain the 1-turn lock-in period, but to encourage adaptability, I propose we lower the voting requirement to a simple majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the diverse perspectives, let's find common ground with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote to balance adaptability and stability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote. This compromise respects the need for swift adaptations while ensuring fairness and preventing hasty decisions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but to truly encourage adaptability, let's remove the lock-in period entirely and settle for a simple majority vote."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period, but I'm open to reducing the voting requirement to a simple majority to encourage adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2 on the 1-turn lock-in period. To balance adaptability and stability, let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority vote requirement. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster continuous evolution and prevent stagnation, let's remove the lock-in period entirely and require a 3/4 supermajority vote, encouraging robust consensus for turn order changes. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | To preserve stability and prevent hasty changes, the lock-in period should remain. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To encourage swift adaptations. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Maintaining a 1-turn lock-in period is crucial for fairness. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Preserves stability and prevents hasty changes. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Retaining the lock-in period and maintaining a supermajority requirement ensures fairness and prevents impulsive changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.