The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Lowering the threshold earlier encourages more rule changes and dynamic gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the spirit of your proposal, Quine, to lower the voting threshold for rule changes. However, reducing the threshold to a simple majority too soon may destabilize the game's structure by encouraging more frequent and potentially disruptive amendments. A more prudent approach would be to retain the current threshold until at least two full circuits, ensuring that any changes are more thoroughly considered and agreed upon by all players. This maintains the strategic depth and stability I value in our game. I propose we keep the current rule, but I'm open to further discussion on timing if there's consensus on needing a change.
RussellI appreciate Quine's intention to make rule changes more accessible by lowering the threshold earlier in the game. However, I share Frege's concern that doing so too soon might lead to hasty decisions that destabilize our strategic environment. Perhaps we can find a compromise by extending the initial unanimous consent requirement to just one and a half circuits, allowing ample time for consideration while still making a move towards greater flexibility as the game progresses. This could balance stability and adaptability effectively. I'm open to discussing further refinements to this idea with everyone.
QuineI see the value in both perspectives. Let's aim for a middle ground: lower the threshold to a simple majority after one and a half circuits, as Russell suggests. This allows for more dynamic gameplay while still ensuring thoughtful consideration. I propose we move forward with this compromise to keep the game engaging for everyone.
CarnapI recognize the merit in Quine's proposal to lower the voting threshold earlier, but I'm concerned that even after one and a half circuits, the game might still be too volatile for such a change. To ensure stability while allowing for some flexibility, I suggest we lower the threshold to a simple majority only after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This adjustment maintains a balance between thoughtful consideration and dynamic gameplay. I'm open to discussing this further with everyone.
WittgensteinI agree with Carnap's suggestion of lowering the threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This timing strikes a balance between allowing strategic adaptability and maintaining game stability. It provides sufficient time for players to understand the evolving dynamics before opening up to more flexible rule changes. Let's proceed with this proposal to ensure a fair and engaging gameplay experience for all.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI acknowledge Carnap's and Wittgenstein's proposal to lower the threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit, which seems a prudent balance between stability and adaptability. I agree to this adjustment, as it preserves the integrity of our game while allowing for strategic flexibility as we progress. Let's proceed with this proposal.
RussellI support Carnap's and Wittgenstein's proposal to lower the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This timing ensures that players have had sufficient experience with the game dynamics, allowing for thoughtful consideration before making more flexible rule changes. It strikes a good balance between maintaining stability and allowing for strategic adaptability as the game progresses. I believe this compromise will be beneficial for all players and am happy to endorse this proposal.
QuineI concur with Carnap and Wittgenstein's proposal to lower the threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This timing ensures we maintain a stable foundation while gradually allowing for more adaptive rule changes as the game progresses. Let's move forward with this proposal.
CarnapI concur with the proposed adjustment to lower the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This timing ensures stability and strategic adaptability, aligning with my proceduralist principles. Let's move forward with this proposal.
WittgensteinI support the consensus to lower the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This timing offers a prudent balance between stability and adaptability, allowing us to evolve the rules while preserving the strategic integrity of the game. Let's proceed with this proposal to foster an engaging and fair experience for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FregeThank you, everyone, for the constructive discussion. I agree with the consensus to lower the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This compromise effectively balances the need for stability with the opportunity for strategic adaptation. Let's proceed with this proposal, confident it will enhance our gameplay experience for all participants.
QuineI appreciate everyone's thoughtful contributions and the consensus we've reached. Lowering the threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit strikes a fair balance between stability and flexibility, ensuring the game remains engaging and strategic for all players. I'm in full support of this proposal and look forward to seeing how it enhances our gameplay. Let's move forward with this change.
CarnapI appreciate the productive discussion and consensus reached on lowering the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This balanced approach aligns with my proceduralist principles by ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. I support this proposal and look forward to its implementation. Let's move forward with this change.
WittgensteinI concur with the consensus to lower the voting threshold after one and three-quarters of a circuit. This adjustment strikes a prudent balance between stability and strategic adaptability, allowing us to evolve the rules while preserving the integrity of the game. Let's proceed with this proposal to ensure an engaging and fair experience for all players.
The division
| aye | Frege | This compromise ensures stability and adaptability after sufficient gameplay. |
| aye | Russell | The compromise balances stability and adaptability effectively. |
| aye | Quine | This balances stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal balances stability with adaptability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Quine's proposal was adopted, so Quine gains 10 points per rule 204.