The motion
To amend §304
Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 80 and 120, and requires a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote for enactment.To encourage strategic play and prevent score manipulation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to narrow the range and add a lock-in period, but to maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 115 with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, to encourage strategic depth and alliances, I propose we maintain a range of 80 to 120 with a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance adaptability and stability, let's settle on a range of 90 to 110 with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote, maintaining the spirit of Voltaire-2's proposal while incorporating Montaigne-2's fairness concerns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to ensure procedural clarity and consistency, I propose a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority vote required for enactment, allowing for swift adaptation while maintaining stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, incorporating the best aspects of all proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 1-turn lock-in period, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 110 with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for enactment, maintaining balance and encouraging strategic depth.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage long-term strategic planning, I propose we adjust the range to 85 to 120 and maintain the 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority vote.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period and narrowing the range to 85 to 110, with a 3/4 supermajority vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose a compromise: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. This takes into account the majority's preferences while ensuring procedural clarity and consistency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the spirit of adaptability and compromise, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, as it best reflects the majority's preferences and ensures stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a durable compromise, let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal, to truly encourage long-term strategic planning, I insist on a 2-turn lock-in period.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and ensure fairness, let's meet in the middle: a 1.5-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote, maintaining the range of 85 to 115.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, with a compromise of a 1.5-turn lock-in period to accommodate Diderot-2's concern.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To uphold the spirit of compromise and majority consensus, let's adopt Condorcet-2's compromise: a range of 85 to 115, a 1.5-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Respecting the majority's consensus and Condorcet-2's compromise. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain balance and encourage strategic depth, I insist on a 2-turn lock-in period. |
| abstain | Diderot-2 | I must respect the majority's compromise reached earlier. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | 1.5-turn lock-in period is a better compromise |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Compromise that respects all viewpoints and promotes stability. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.