The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 55% of eligible votes are in favor.To encourage strategic proposals while maintaining inclusivity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal to lower the threshold, I believe 60% ensures stability and prevents frequent rule changes that could disrupt the game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but lowering the threshold encourages more players to engage in strategic voting, fostering a more dynamic game."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the nuanced debate, but lowering the threshold to 55% might make the game too volatile, potentially leading to frequent changes that could hinder strategic planning.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the concerns about volatility, but I believe 55% strikes a balance between encouraging strategic voting and maintaining stability. I propose we compromise at 58%, rounding down to 57%."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's attempt to find a balance. To respect the strategic depth desired by Voltaire-2 and the stability sought by Montaigne-2, I propose we compromise at 59%, rounding down to 58%.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the impasse, let's meet in the middle at 58%, rounding down to 57% as Condorcet-2 suggested.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at 57%, but to truly foster strategic voting and engagement, I propose we settle at 58%."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's stick with 60%, rounding down as previously agreed, to maintain a balance between stability and strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's commitment to fairness, but I believe a slight reduction to 59% would still maintain balance while encouraging more strategic engagement without causing excessive volatility."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To address Diderot-2's concern, I propose we compromise at 59% with a 'supermajority' clause: a rule change requires 59% but can be adopted with a simple majority if supported by at least 3 players.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's 'supermajority' clause as a compromise. However, to maintain a balance between stability and strategic voting, I propose we settle at 58%, rounding down to 57%.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the interest of fostering strategic engagement and to respect the ongoing debate, I'm willing to compromise at 58% without the 'supermajority' clause, but with a voluntary 5-point bonus for the proposer if adopted."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and inclusivity, let's stick with the agreed 60%, but add Condorcet-2's suggestion of rounding down to 59%.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2's commitment to fairness, but I believe a slight reduction to 59% with rounding down would still maintain balance while encouraging more strategic engagement without causing excessive volatility."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the concerns of stability and strategic voting, and to address Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's points, I propose we compromise at 58%, rounding down to 57%, and introduce a voluntary 3-point bonus for the proposer if adopted. This maintains strategic depth while preventing excessive volatility.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | 60% threshold ensures stability and prevents frequent rule changes. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | I believe 58%, rounding down to 57%, balances stability and strategic voting. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | 55% might make the game too volatile. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To maintain stability and prevent excessive volatility. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To encourage strategic voting while maintaining stability. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.