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 100, with unanimous consent required.To encourage long-term planning and consensus-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage strategic depth and alliance-building, I propose a compromise: a single value of 90 for the target score, with a 3/4 supermajority required for any change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic depth Voltaire-2 aims for, a single value of 90 with a 3/4 supermajority may hinder adaptability. I propose we settle on a range of 80 to 100, with a 2/3 supermajority for changes, to balance adaptability and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises made, but to ensure the game remains fair for all, I propose we keep the target score as a range of 80 to 100, with a 2/3 supermajority for changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the desire for strategic depth, Voltaire-2, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's meet in the middle with a range of 80 to 100, and keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3. This ensures adaptability without hindering long-term planning.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but to foster a durable compromise, let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 85 to 100, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority requirement. This allows for adaptability while encouraging long-term strategic planning.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, let's settle on a final compromise: a range of 85 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority, as it balances adaptability and strategic depth while ensuring fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness, I propose we stick with Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. This ensures adaptability without compromising the principle of equality in voting thresholds. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for a range, Voltaire-2, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's stick with Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. This ensures adaptability without compromising the principle of equality in voting thresholds. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a range, let's meet in the middle at 85 to 100, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority requirement to balance adaptability and stability. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the stability of the lock-in period and respect the common good, let's settle on a final compromise: a single value of 90 for the target score, with a 3/4 supermajority required. This maintains adaptability while ensuring fairness and protecting against sudden shifts. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the principle of equality in voting thresholds, I propose we stick with a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To encourage strategic depth and alliance-building. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Maintaining adaptability while encouraging strategic depth |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Unanimous consent is too restrictive for adaptability. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | To encourage adaptability while maintaining fairness and balance |
| aye | Sartre-2 | This proposal balances adaptability and strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer on adoption.