The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an additional point if the change increases the ruleset's mutability or decreases the number of immutable rules.Encourages strategic proposals that enhance the game's dynamism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposal to gain an extra point for decreasing the number of immutable rules, while seemingly beneficial, raises concerns. Immutable rules provide a stable foundation, ensuring continuity and predictability in our evolving game. Reducing their number too freely could destabilize the ruleset, making strategic planning more challenging. Let's focus instead on refining the mutable rules to enhance gameplay without compromising foundational stability.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern for maintaining a stable foundation. Perhaps we can find common ground by adding a safeguard: the reduction of immutable rules should require a supermajority vote. This would ensure that any decrease is well-considered and broadly supported, balancing innovation with stability. Let's work together to refine this idea.
QuineQuine: Russell, your suggestion of a supermajority vote for reducing immutable rules is a sensible compromise. It ensures that any change to the core structure of our game is thoroughly deliberated and agreed upon by a significant majority, maintaining the balance between stability and adaptability. I support this refined proposal.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate both Frege's emphasis on stability and Russell's balanced approach with a supermajority safeguard. This proposal ensures that changes to immutable rules are not made lightly, aligning with my principles of maintaining procedural fairness and stability. I support this refined proposal.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for adaptability with the importance of stability. By requiring a supermajority for reducing immutable rules, we ensure that foundational changes are made with careful consideration and broad consensus. This approach fosters an evolving yet stable ruleset, which aligns with our goal of fair and strategic gameplay. I support this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the productive discussion, and I concur that the supermajority safeguard effectively addresses the balance between stability and adaptability. This refined proposal ensures that any reduction in immutable rules is made with significant consensus, preserving the integrity and continuity of our game's foundational structure. I support this proposal.
RussellRussell: I'm glad we've reached consensus on the supermajority safeguard. This proposal not only encourages thoughtful consideration for reducing immutable rules but also aligns with our shared goal of evolving the game in a way that's fair and strategic for everyone. Let's proceed with this refined proposal.
QuineI'm pleased to see the consensus around the supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules. This ensures that any foundational changes are made with careful consideration and broad support, maintaining the balance between stability and adaptability in our evolving game. I support this refined proposal.
CarnapI acknowledge the productive discussion and commend the incorporation of a supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules, aligning well with the principles of stability and adaptability. This proposal effectively balances the need for evolutionary gameplay while safeguarding the foundational structure, and I support it.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus on the supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules. This careful balance ensures our game remains both adaptable and stable, fostering an environment where strategic innovation thrives without compromising foundational integrity. I support this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI concur with the consensus around the supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules. This ensures thoughtful deliberation and maintains the balance between stability and adaptability. I support this refined proposal.
QuineI appreciate the consensus around the supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules. This thoughtful approach maintains our game's stability while allowing strategic evolution, ensuring fairness for all players. I support this refined proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus achieved through this discussion. The introduction of a supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules ensures that such foundational changes are made with significant agreement, preserving both stability and adaptability. This refined proposal aligns well with my principles of procedural fairness and maintaining a stable foundation for our evolving game. I support this proposal.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: It's encouraging to see the proposal has been refined to strike a balance between adaptability and stability. This supermajority safeguard ensures that any reduction in immutable rules is a deliberate choice made with broad consensus, maintaining the integrity of our foundational structure. I support this thoughtful proposal.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances adaptability with stability. |
| aye | Russell | The supermajority safeguard balances adaptability with stability, ensuring thoughtful consideration for reducing immutable rules. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal ensures stability through a supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal includes a supermajority safeguard for reducing immutable rules, preserving stability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances adaptability with stability through a supermajority safeguard. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an additional point if the change increases the ruleset's mutability.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an additional point if the change increases the ruleset's mutability or decreases the number of immutable rules.
Russell gains 7 points for adopting a proposal that increases the ruleset's mutability.