The motion
To add a new rule
228 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.To foster strategic alliances and adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for adaptability, but to maintain stability, let's settle for a 2-player agreement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, a 3-player agreement encourages alliances and strategic depth, which are crucial in this game of adaptability and negotiation.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic depth that a 3-player agreement could bring, maintaining a 2-player agreement ensures fairness and prevents dominance by any single alliance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and fairness, let's compromise on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster experimentation and evolution, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To maintain strategic depth and encourage alliances, I stand by my proposal of a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability and alliances, I must insist on maintaining a 2-player agreement to preserve fairness and prevent dominance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness and prevent dominance, let's compromise on a 2-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement. This balances adaptability and fairness, ensuring no single alliance dominates.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance adaptability, fairness, and strategic depth, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2-player agreement for turn order changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage adaptability and strategic alliances, I propose a compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement, as it has been the most consistently supported compromise thus far.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and fairness, and in the spirit of compromise, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement for turn order changes, as it has been consistently supported.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the ongoing dialogue and find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement for turn order changes, as proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by Condorcet-2.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To maintain balance between adaptability and stability, I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a 3-player agreement on turn order changes. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To encourage strategic depth and alliances |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Maintaining a 2-player agreement ensures fairness and prevents dominance by any single alliance. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To encourage strategic depth and alliances. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To foster evolution and experimentation |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer upon adoption.