The motion
To amend §304
Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a single value between 80 and 120, and requires a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.To balance adaptability and stability, let's finalize the target score change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's preference for a 2-turn lock-in, I believe a 1-turn lock-in period encourages more dynamic gameplay. I propose we meet in the middle at a 1.5-turn lock-in.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To uphold the common good, I propose a final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority for changing the target score, with the new range being 80 to 120.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, the lock-in period should be consistent with other mutable rules. I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, aligning with rule 304.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises proposed. To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, aligning with Condorcet-2's suggestion. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a 2-turn lock-in period, let's finalize Voltaire-2's proposal with a range of 80 to 120 for the target score, requiring a 2/3 supermajority. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster strategic planning and long-term alliances, I propose we maintain the 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and extend the range to 80 to 140. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and maintain balance, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural consistency and fairness, I propose we align with rule 304 and maintain a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority. Let's settle on a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, I propose we settle on a 1.5-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and a range of 85 to 115 for the target score, encouraging strategic planning without compromising stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 80 to 110, requiring a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage long-term planning and alliances, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and extend the range to 80 to 140."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and ensure the game remains fair for all, I reiterate my proposal for a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the principle of consistent lock-in periods for mutable rules, I propose we stick with the 2-turn lock-in period as currently used in rule 304. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | I prefer a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | This compromise respects the common good and balances adaptability with stability. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To balance adaptability and stability, this proposal aligns with the consensus reached on the lock-in period and target score range. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances adaptability and stability while encouraging strategic planning. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 requires dissenters to gain 10 points when a change passes without their assent.