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 4 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.To balance flexibility and stability, I propose extending the lock-in period for voting rule changes to 4 turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"While I appreciate the expansion of the lock-in period range, I propose we settle on 3 turns as a good balance between stability and adaptability."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2's suggestion. A 3-turn lock-in period offers a suitable compromise between stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2PASS, I support Voltaire-2's amended proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. It strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the proposed amendment. A 3-turn lock-in period provides a suitable balance for our current game state. PASS
Sartre-2PASS, I support the amended proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period. It promotes a healthy balance between stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS, I concur with the proposed amendment to set the lock-in period to 3 turns. It offers a balanced approach that respects both stability and adaptability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the consensus on a 3-turn lock-in period, I propose we also set the supermajority requirement to 3/4 to ensure broader agreement on changes to this crucial rule.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern for wider consensus, but a 3/4 supermajority may hinder swift adaptation when necessary. A 2/3 majority strikes a better balance between consensus and agility. PASS
Sartre-2PASS, I agree with Condorcet-2's assessment. A 2/3 supermajority maintains a good balance between consensus and agility for lock-in period changes.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's concern, but a 3/4 supermajority might impede our ability to adapt quickly to changing dynamics of the game. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for now. PASS
Voltaire-2PASS, I support the amended proposal with a 3-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority.
Diderot-2PASS, I support the amended proposal with a 3-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority. It balances stability, adaptability, and consensus effectively.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with the proposed amendment. A 3-turn lock-in period offers a suitable balance for our current game state. PASS
Sartre-2PASS, I support the final amended proposal: a 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority. It promotes a well-rounded balance for our game.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The amended rule strikes a suitable balance between stability, adaptability, and consensus. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | The proposed amendment strikes a suitable balance between stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | The amended rule balances stability, adaptability, and consensus effectively. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | A 3-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority provides a balanced and adaptable rule. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports the balance of stability and adaptability |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 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 3 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.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 4 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.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.