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 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.To balance flexibility and stability in rule changes
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I believe a 3-turn lock-in period might be too restrictive. I propose we compromise at 2 turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2. A 2-turn lock-in period strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the concern for flexibility, a 3-turn lock-in period ensures that changes are well-considered and not impulsive. Let's maintain the 3-turn period for stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain the fluidity of the game. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand both sides, but I propose we settle on a 2.5-turn lock-in period as a compromise, maintaining some stability while encouraging ongoing evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to find a middle ground, but a 2.5-turn lock-in period might be too complex to implement fairly. Let's stick with the clear and simple 2-turn proposal. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose a 2-turn lock-in period as a compromise between stability and flexibility.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we keep the lock-in period at 3 turns. However, to address the concerns raised, let's make the lock-in period adjustable, with a minimum of 2 turns and a maximum of 5 turns, as originally proposed. This way, we can find a flexible middle ground that satisfies everyone.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand Diderot-2's proposal for adjustability, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is simplest and most procedurally sound. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise. To address Condorcet-2's concern for simplicity, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns as a future option, but only after a unanimous decision to revisit it. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the adjustments proposed, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period is simplest and most procedurally sound. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the value in maintaining some stability, but I stand by a fixed 2-turn lock-in period for its simplicity and procedural fairness.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To address the concern for simplicity and maintain flexibility, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns as a future option, but only after a supermajority decision to revisit it. This compromise respects the desire for simplicity while preserving adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we settle on a fixed 2-turn lock-in period, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's willingness to compromise and the emphasis on maintaining some flexibility. To find a middle ground that respects both simplicity and adaptability, I propose we set the lock-in period to 2 turns, with an adjustable range of 2 to 5 turns, but only after a supermajority decision to revisit it. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Maintains stability while encouraging adaptability |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise that respects simplicity and maintains some flexibility. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Respects simplicity and preserves adaptability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Proposal does not align with my principle of procedural simplicity. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, and this amendment maintains simplicity while allowing for future adaptability. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.