The motion
To amend §304
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 a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.Amends lock-in period to 2 turns for balance and quicker adaptation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to strengthen the voting requirement for lock-in period changes, but I suggest a compromise of a simple majority instead of a supermajority to maintain balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but a supermajority is necessary here to prevent reckless changes to the lock-in period. However, I'm open to compromise. How about a 3/4 majority, with a 2-turn lock-in period as you suggested?
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I appreciate the increased threshold, a 3/4 majority might still be too low. I propose a compromise of a 2/3 supermajority, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal for a 2/3 supermajority to ensure stability, but I suggest we increase the lock-in period to 3 turns to prevent hasty changes. PASS with these amendments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a return to the original 3-turn lock-in period to encourage experimentation and evolution, while still maintaining a 2/3 supermajority threshold to ensure stability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2. To balance stability and adaptability, I propose a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree to a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period, with the condition that any change to the lock-in period itself requires a unanimous vote to maintain the integrity of our stability-adaptability balance. PASS if this amendment is accepted.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern for maintaining stability, I must insist that a unanimous vote for changes to the lock-in period itself could potentially stall necessary adaptations. I propose we compromise at a 2/3 supermajority for all lock-in period changes, with a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS with Diderot-2's amendments, ensuring a balance between stability and adaptability while maintaining a principled approach to voting requirements.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster growth and adaptability, I propose we maintain the 3-turn lock-in period while adopting a 2/3 supermajority for these changes. PASS if this amendment is accepted.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but I believe a 2-turn lock-in period and a simple majority vote would strike the best balance between adaptability and stability. PASS with these amendments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, I propose we maintain the 2/3 supermajority but increase the lock-in period to 3 turns, balancing stability with adaptability. PASS if this amendment is accepted.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's proposal, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority for stability and increasing the lock-in period to 3 turns to prevent hasty changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I respect the emphasis on stability, a 3-turn lock-in period encourages more experimentation and evolution, which I believe is vital for the game's long-term health. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority but increase the lock-in period to 3 turns as Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 suggested, compromising between adaptability and stability. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | I support the 2/3 supermajority and 2-turn lock-in period to balance stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | The proposed amendment balances adaptability and stability with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | A balanced approach to adaptability and stability. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Maintaining a 2/3 supermajority ensures stability, and a 3-turn lock-in period balances adaptability. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages experimentation while maintaining stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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 a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.