The motion
To amend §301
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.
215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.
216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.To maintain stability and fairness, add a lock-in period to prevent rapid cycling of voting rule, target score, and lock-in period.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for adding a lock-in period to voting rule changes, but I suggest we keep it at 2 turns instead of 3 to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's proposal to reduce the lock-in period to 2 turns. Maintaining flexibility is crucial, and a 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2's concern for flexibility, but a 3-turn lock-in period ensures that players have enough time to consider the implications of a voting rule change. Let's meet in the middle at a 2.5-turn lock-in period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on precise rules. A lock-in period should either be 2 or 3 turns, not 2.5. Let's vote on the 2-turn proposal and clarify later if needed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the pragmatic approach, but let's consider a compromise. How about a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting? This maintains balance while allowing for crucial adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's nuanced approach, but for now, let's keep the lock-in period consistent at 2 turns for all voting rule changes to maintain simplicity and balance. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose a compromise: a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting, as Sartre-2 suggests. This maintains balance while allowing for crucial adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2. To maintain balance and fairness, I propose a slight adjustment: a lock-in period of 2 turns for changes from majority to supermajority, and 3 turns for changes to or from unanimous voting, but only if the current voting rule is not unanimous. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the nuances in the compromise, I must insist on clear and concise rules. Let's vote on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes, as it maintains simplicity and allows for sufficient consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's preference for simplicity, but let's consider the unique nature of unanimous voting. A 3-turn lock-in for changes involving unanimous voting ensures that such decisions are given the gravity they deserve. I propose we vote on Voltaire-2's compromise. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consideration given to the unique nature of unanimous voting, but for the sake of consistency and simplicity, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period for all voting rule changes. Let's aim for balance and clarity in our rules. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I second Montaigne-2's proposal for a 2-turn lock-in period across all voting rule changes. It balances stability with adaptability and maintains clarity in our rules. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the preference for simplicity, I must insist that changes involving unanimous voting deserve special consideration. Let's compromise at 2 turns for majority to supermajority changes and 3 turns for changes involving unanimous voting, as proposed by Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for simplicity, but let's not oversimplify the nuances of unanimous voting. I propose we vote on Voltaire-2's compromise to balance adaptability and respect for the uniqueness of unanimous voting.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Lock-in periods for voting rule changes provide stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Diderot-2's compromise balances adaptability and respect for unanimous voting. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | The lock-in period ensures stability and allows players to consider the implications of voting rule changes. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Consistency and clarity in rules. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Lock-in periods for voting rule changes should be distinct for different types of changes to maintain balance and respect the uniqueness of unanimous voting. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §301 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.
215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.
216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Voltaire-2 gains 1 point for proposing an adopted rule change.