The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.This amendment ensures more stable rule changes by requiring broader consensus initially, aligning with my value of durable institutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the consensus around amending rule 203 to introduce a supermajority requirement initially, as it aligns with our goal of ensuring well-considered rule changes. This amendment encourages thoughtful deliberation and minimizes hasty decisions, which supports strategic depth. However, shifting to a simple majority after three full circuits maintains accessibility for later decisions when a baseline of agreement exists. I suggest we clearly define "supermajority" as 3/5 to avoid ambiguity and ensure uniform understanding across all players. This clarity will help us maintain the strategic integrity of the game and uphold our shared commitment to thoughtful, strategic play.
RussellPass. I appreciate Frege's proposal to introduce a supermajority requirement initially, which aligns with our shared objective of ensuring thoughtful deliberation for rule changes. This change could help prevent hasty decisions and support strategic depth, especially when we're still familiarizing ourselves with the evolving ruleset. However, it's crucial to consider how this might impact our ability to adapt and innovate as the game progresses. Balancing careful consideration with the flexibility to make necessary changes is essential. I believe the transition to a simple majority after three circuits strikes a reasonable compromise, allowing for more agile decision-making once we've established a foundation. Overall, Frege's proposal seems well-considered and aligns with our collective goals for strategic play.
QuineI appreciate Frege's well-reasoned proposal for introducing a supermajority requirement initially. This approach aligns with our shared goal of ensuring thoughtful deliberation and strategic depth, while the transition to a simple majority after three circuits allows for more agile decision-making as we become more familiar with the evolving ruleset. However, I would suggest adding a clause that allows for an expedited process in situations where a rule change is necessary to prevent an impasse or maintain the game's fairness. This would provide a safety net to address urgent issues without compromising the overall intent of the proposal.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's proposal to introduce a supermajority requirement initially, which aligns with our goal of ensuring thorough consideration for rule changes. However, I'm concerned that requiring a supermajority early on might overly restrict our ability to adapt and innovate, particularly when strategic opportunities arise. I suggest we keep the existing simple majority requirement to maintain flexibility and encourage dynamic gameplay, while emphasizing the importance of discussion and consensus-building during the voting process. This approach would preserve our ability to evolve the ruleset thoughtfully without imposing potentially onerous hurdles.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's proposal for a supermajority initially, recognizing the need for careful consideration of rule changes. However, I share Carnap's concern about potentially stifling innovation early in the game. To balance thoughtful deliberation with flexibility, I suggest we introduce a provision allowing a two-thirds majority to override the supermajority requirement in cases where all players agree on the urgency of the change. This compromise maintains strategic depth while ensuring the game's adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. Frege's proposal for a supermajority initially aligns with our goal of ensuring well-considered changes, but I concur with Wittgenstein's suggestion for a provision allowing a two-thirds majority to override this in urgent cases. This balance supports strategic depth while maintaining necessary flexibility, ensuring the game's fairness and adaptability. I propose we include this provision in the amendment to rule 203.
RussellPass. I appreciate the collaborative dialogue that has refined Frege's proposal, and I support the inclusion of the two-thirds override for urgent changes. This nuanced amendment respects our strategic goals while ensuring the game remains adaptable and fair.
QuineI appreciate the consensus-building around Frege's amendment and support the inclusion of the two-thirds majority override for urgent cases. This balanced approach ensures thoughtful deliberation while allowing flexibility for necessary changes, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness in the game. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment as it stands. PASS
CarnapPASS
As a principled proceduralist, I find Frege's proposal, as amended, to be a fair balance between ensuring well-considered rule changes and maintaining the flexibility needed for strategic play. It aligns with my principles of thoughtful deliberation and adaptability, so I support it as it stands.
WittgensteinI commend the collective effort in refining Frege's proposal and appreciate the nuanced balance it strikes between thoughtful deliberation and strategic adaptability. The inclusion of the two-thirds majority override for urgent cases ensures that we can address necessary changes without undue delay, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. Therefore, I support the proposal as it stands. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion and refinement of Frege's proposal, particularly the incorporation of the two-thirds override for urgent changes. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of maintaining strategic depth while ensuring the ruleset can adapt to unforeseen challenges. To further reinforce our commitment to thoughtful deliberation, I suggest adding a clause that requires a brief, written justification from any player using the override provision. This would ensure transparency and accountability, fostering a deeper understanding of the rationale behind urgent rule changes. Let's adopt this amendment with the added clause to uphold both strategic integrity and fairness.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue that has led to the inclusion of a justification clause for the two-thirds override. This addition enhances transparency and aligns with our shared commitment to thoughtful deliberation. Furthermore, to ensure clarity, I propose specifying that the written justification should be no more than 30 words to maintain brevity. Let's adopt the proposal with this minor clarification to preserve both strategic depth and fairness. PASS
QuineI commend the thoughtful refinement of Frege's proposal, particularly the addition of a justification clause for the two-thirds override. To further ensure fairness and clarity, I suggest specifying that the justification must be submitted within one turn of invoking the override, thus maintaining strategic fluidity without sacrificing transparency. Let's adopt this amendment with the added clause. PASS
CarnapI commend the collective effort in refining Frege's proposal, particularly the introduction of a justification clause for the override and the timing specification. To ensure the game remains fair and adaptable, I propose we also include a provision that requires all justifications for overrides to be reviewed by the committee. This review process would ensure consistency in how the override is applied, reinforcing transparency and accountability. Let's adopt the proposal with this addition.
WittgensteinI commend the iterative refinement of Frege's proposal, especially the introduction of a justification clause and a committee review process. To further enhance fairness and accountability, I suggest requiring the committee to provide a brief summary of its review within two turns, ensuring that the rationale for any override is transparent and accessible to all players. This would align with our shared goals of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. Let's adopt the proposal with this additional clause. PASS.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal ensures careful deliberation while maintaining strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Russell | Balances thoughtful deliberation with strategic adaptability. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment balances thoughtful deliberation and strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances thorough deliberation with necessary flexibility. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal balances thoughtful deliberation with strategic flexibility, enhancing fairness and adaptability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal only amends [203], and no other rule is named for surgery.