The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This amendment ensures a longer period of consensus is required, promoting stability and reducing volatility in rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeThe current proposal to delay the threshold shift until after three full circuits is a measured amendment that aligns with my preference for gradual changes. However, extending the unanimity requirement further could unnecessarily stymie progress, especially as the game's pace picks up. I propose an amendment to the proposal: instead of three circuits, let the threshold shift after two full circuits. This retains a balance between careful governance and allowing for more dynamic rule changes as we become more familiar with the game.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to reduce the threshold shift to two full circuits, which seems reasonable to me as it balances consensus with the need for progress. However, I'd like to suggest a slight modification: let's make the threshold shift to a simple majority after two and a half circuits. This compromise gives us a bit more time to work together while still allowing for quicker adaptation as the game progresses. I believe this middle ground can gain broad support.
QuineQuine: Frege's proposal to shift the threshold after two circuits is a step in the right direction, but I concur with Russell's suggestion of two and a half circuits. This allows for a more measured adaptation period, ensuring that players have sufficient time to understand and engage with the evolving ruleset. I support Russell's compromise and will vote for it.
CarnapThe proposal to shift the threshold after two and a half circuits appears to be a reasonable compromise, as it balances the need for careful governance with the need for flexibility as the game progresses. However, I would like to point out that defining "two and a half circuits" may introduce ambiguity, which could lead to disputes. For procedural clarity and to avoid potential conflicts, I propose specifying the exact turn number that constitutes "two and a half circuits" based on the current turn order. If this proposal is adopted, it should include a precise turn count to ensure that all players have a clear understanding of when the threshold shift will occur. I am willing to support this amendment if it is included, as it aligns with my principle of procedural precision.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I support Carnap's amendment for procedural clarity. A precise turn count will ensure everyone is on the same page and prevent disputes. Let's define "two and a half circuits" as exactly 15 turns in our current order. This precision aligns with my belief in fair and transparent rule evolution.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Carnap's amendment for procedural clarity and Wittgenstein's precise definition of "two and a half circuits" as 15 turns. This ensures all players have a clear understanding and reduces potential disputes. I support this refined proposal with the specified turn count of 15. This balanced approach allows for necessary governance while adapting to the evolving dynamics of the game.
RussellRussell: I concur with Carnap and Wittgenstein on the need for procedural clarity. Defining "two and a half circuits" as exactly 15 turns ensures transparency and minimizes disputes, which aligns with the goal of maintaining a smooth and fair game progression. I support this refined proposal with the specified turn count and believe it will receive broad acceptance.
QuineI agree with the proposed amendment to specify "two and a half circuits" as exactly 15 turns, as it ensures clarity and minimizes potential disputes, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining fair and transparent rule evolution. This precise turn count strikes a good balance between careful governance and allowing for dynamic rule changes, which is crucial for keeping the game engaging and fair for everyone.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: While I appreciate the effort to achieve procedural clarity with a specific turn count, I believe we can further enhance fairness by considering player engagement levels. As players become more familiar with the rules and dynamics, their ability to contribute meaningfully increases. Therefore, I propose an additional layer to this amendment: let's introduce a "dynamic engagement factor" that allows for an earlier threshold shift if a significant majority of players express readiness for change. This approach respects both procedural clarity and the evolving nature of our engagement, ensuring the rule change reflects the players' collective readiness.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: Wittgenstein's suggestion of a "dynamic engagement factor" is intriguing but could introduce subjectivity and potential disputes over readiness, complicating the rules. A clear, predetermined threshold like 15 turns offers fairness and predictability, which aligns better with maintaining a stable and transparent ruleset. Let's keep the proposal as it is, with the turn count specified, to ensure we maintain clarity and minimize conflicts, allowing for smooth gameplay. I support this proposal and encourage others to do the same.
RussellCarnap: I agree with Frege's emphasis on clarity and predictability. Introducing a "dynamic engagement factor" could complicate the rules and lead to disputes about readiness. Let's maintain the proposal as it stands with the specified turn count of 15, ensuring all players have a clear understanding and can anticipate the threshold shift. This approach minimizes potential conflicts and supports smooth gameplay. I support this proposal as it is.
QuineQuine: The idea of a "dynamic engagement factor" adds unnecessary complexity and potential for disputes, which we aim to avoid. The specified turn count of 15 provides a clear, objective threshold, ensuring fairness and transparency for all players. I support maintaining the proposal with this turn count, as it balances gradual adaptation with procedural clarity.
CarnapI support the proposal to specify "two and a half circuits" as exactly 15 turns. This amendment ensures procedural clarity and minimizes potential disputes, aligning with my principle of maintaining clear and predictable rules. I encourage others to support this refined proposal for the sake of fair and transparent gameplay.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: While I respect the call for procedural clarity, I emphasize that our ultimate goal is to foster a dynamic and engaging game environment. Specifying 15 turns is a good start, but let's also consider a provision that allows players to propose a threshold shift earlier if all agree unanimously. This balances clarity with flexibility, ensuring that rule changes can adapt to our collective readiness without sacrificing procedural integrity. I propose we keep the specified turn count but add this optional unanimous agreement clause to accommodate our evolving engagement levels.
The division
| aye | Frege | This amendment maintains clarity with a specified turn count. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal strikes a balance between gradual change and consensus, ensuring clarity with the specified turn count of 15. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment promotes a timely shift to majority rule, balancing progress and governance. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal provides a clear, specific turn count for the threshold shift. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances clarity with adaptability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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 only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Frege's proposal was adopted, so per rule 202, Frege gains points equal to the die roll, which is 6.