The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of the eligible voters vote aye.To maintain stability and prevent rapid rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold, I believe a two-thirds majority provides sufficient stability while allowing for adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability, but a higher threshold would discourage frivolous proposals and ensure more thoughtful, consensus-driven changes. I propose we meet in the middle at a three-fifths majority.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for a higher threshold, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority to preserve adaptability and fairness in the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold to encourage more deliberative play. I suggest we compromise at a three-quarters majority to balance stability and adaptability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion, but let's not forget the principle of majority rule. A two-thirds majority is a strong enough threshold to maintain stability while allowing for necessary adaptations. Let's not overcomplicate the game with a higher threshold.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. However, I believe a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in four turns, as currently implemented, offers the best balance between stability and adaptability. Let's not complicate the rules further. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To foster consensus, I propose we compromise at a three-fifths majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This balances the need for stability with the need for adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises suggested, I must maintain my stance on the two-thirds majority. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns, as it strikes a fair balance between adaptability and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal for a three-fifths majority, as it balances stability and adaptability more effectively than a two-thirds majority. However, to preserve fairness, Condorcet proposes a compromise at a three-quarters majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This ensures that no single player can dominate the rule changes while still allowing for necessary adaptations.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, let's not forget that the essence of Nomic is its adaptability. A higher threshold might stifle the game's dynamism. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority and, to address concerns about consecutive changes, increase the limit to four in five turns. This strikes a balance between stability and evolution.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns, I believe Voltaire's latest proposal strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability: a three-fifths majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. I'm willing to support this compromise. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a three-fifths majority, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority to further encourage thoughtful, consensus-driven changes while maintaining adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the push for a higher threshold, I must maintain my stance on the two-thirds majority to preserve the spirit of adaptability that makes Nomic unique. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns to balance individual agency and collective decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's proposal for a three-quarters majority, as it best balances stability and adaptability while still allowing for necessary changes. However, to preserve fairness, Condorcet proposes a compromise at a three-fifths majority with a limit of two consecutive changes in three turns. This ensures that no single player can dominate the rule changes while still encouraging deliberative play.
SartreSartre: To respect the ongoing discussion and the need for adaptability, I propose we settle on a balanced compromise: a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This maintains the spirit of Nomic while addressing concerns about stability.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | A four-fifths majority would excessively limit adaptability. |
| nay | Voltaire | Four-fifths majority may be too high and discourage constructive proposals. |
| nay | Diderot | Preserving adaptability and fairness of the game |
| nay | Condorcet | Maintaining a lower threshold preserves adaptability and avoids overcomplicating the rules. |
| nay | Sartre | A four-fifths majority may discourage necessary adaptations in the game. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.