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 two-thirds majority of those voting.This change balances strategic rule alterations with a need for broader consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI support this amendment to [203]. Shifting the threshold to a two-thirds majority after three circuits balances the need for consensus with the practical difficulty of unanimous consent in a larger group. This change ensures that while rule changes remain difficult, they are not impossible, thereby maintaining the integrity of the game while allowing progress. I propose we consider adding a provision that any player who votes against a change after the threshold has shifted can appeal the decision within one turn, ensuring transparency and fairness.
GoedelI support Tarski's amendment to [203] with a minor tweak. Shifting to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a fair compromise. However, I propose adding a clause that any player who votes against a rule change after the threshold shift can call for a re-vote within three turns. This ensures that all voices are heard and maintains fairness. Let's work together to refine this proposal.
ChurchI support Tarski's proposal with a consideration for fairness and practicality. Shifting the threshold to a two-thirds majority after three circuits provides a reasonable balance between maintaining consensus and allowing for progress. However, I suggest refining Goedel's idea: rather than allowing an appeal for a re-vote within three turns, we should limit appeals to significant changes that could substantially impact the game's balance, and allow appeals only within one turn. This ensures that appeals remain a tool for fairness without becoming a means to stall progress. Let's refine this proposal to maintain both integrity and momentum in our game.
KleeneI support Tarski's proposal to amend [203] with the suggested refinement by Church. Shifting the threshold to a two-thirds majority after three circuits strikes a good balance between consensus and progress. However, limiting appeals to significant changes with a one-turn window ensures that the process remains fair without unduly delaying game progress. This refined approach upholds the integrity of our rules while allowing for necessary changes.
PostI support Tarski's proposal to amend [203], as it thoughtfully balances the need for consensus with the practicalities of progress. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a reasonable compromise that acknowledges the challenges of unanimous consent in a larger group. Church's suggestion to limit appeals to significant changes with a one-turn window is a prudent refinement, ensuring fairness without stalling the game. This amendment maintains the integrity of our rules while allowing for necessary evolution. Let's refine this proposal to include a clear definition of "significant changes" to avoid ambiguity, ensuring all players understand the scope of what can be appealed. By doing so, we safeguard the game's fairness and momentum.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI support the proposed amendment to [203] with the suggested refinements, including Church's idea to limit appeals to significant changes within one turn. To ensure clarity and prevent disputes, let's define "significant changes" as those affecting game balance, fairness, or competitive equality. This approach maintains integrity while allowing for progress, and I propose we draft a preliminary list of examples to guide future discussions. Let's finalize this amendment to balance consensus and evolution effectively.
GoedelI support Tarski's proposed amendment to [203] with the addition of Church's and Post's suggestions for limiting appeals. Shifting to a two-thirds majority after three circuits strikes a fair balance between consensus and progress. Let's adopt Church's proposal to restrict appeals to significant changes with a one-turn window, and Post's idea of defining "significant changes" with examples to ensure clarity and prevent disputes. This approach maintains the game's integrity while allowing necessary evolution. Let's finalize this amendment to ensure both fairness and momentum in our game.
ChurchI support Tarski's proposal with the refinements added by Goedel, Church, and Post. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a fair compromise, and limiting appeals to significant changes within one turn, clearly defined, ensures fairness without unnecessary delays. This balanced approach maintains the integrity and momentum of the game. Let's finalize this amendment with a clear definition of "significant changes" to guide future discussions effectively.
KleeneI support Tarski's amendment to [203], with the refinements discussed, particularly the addition of a clear definition for "significant changes" that includes examples. This ensures that any appeals remain a tool for fairness without stalling the game, maintaining a balance between consensus and progress. I agree with the proposal to finalize this amendment with a precise definition to avoid ambiguity and ensure all players understand the scope of what can be appealed. Let's ensure our rules evolve thoughtfully while preserving the game's integrity.
PostI fully support the proposed amendment to [203], as it thoughtfully balances consensus with the need for progress. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a reasonable compromise, and limiting appeals to significant changes with a clear definition ensures fairness and prevents unnecessary delays. This approach maintains the integrity of our rules while allowing for necessary evolution. Let's finalize this amendment with a comprehensive list of examples for "significant changes" to guide future discussions and ensure clarity for all players.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The consensus on shifting to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a balanced approach that respects both the integrity and evolution of the game. The addition of a clear definition for "significant changes" is crucial to prevent ambiguity and ensure fairness. I propose we include an example of significant changes, such as those that alter the scoring mechanism or fundamentally change the gameplay dynamics, to guide future discussions. This amendment, with its clear guidelines, will maintain the game's integrity while allowing for necessary progress. Let's finalize this amendment with these considerations to ensure all players are aligned and understand the implications.
GoedelI fully support Tarski's proposal with all the refinements discussed. Shifting to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a fair balance between consensus and progress. Limiting appeals to significant changes, clearly defined, ensures fairness without unnecessary delays. This amendment maintains our game's integrity while allowing for necessary evolution. Let's finalize this proposal with a comprehensive list of examples for "significant changes" to guide future discussions, ensuring clarity for all players. This collaborative approach reflects our commitment to both fairness and momentum in the game.
ChurchI fully support Tarski's refined proposal. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a balanced approach, and the clear definition of "significant changes" ensures fairness and clarity. Let's finalize this amendment with examples to maintain the integrity and momentum of the game.
KleeneI support Tarski's refined proposal with all the discussed refinements. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a balanced approach, and defining "significant changes" ensures fairness and clarity. Let's finalize this amendment with examples to guide future discussions and maintain the integrity and momentum of the game. Additionally, I propose we include a mechanism for revisiting and potentially revising the definition of "significant changes" after a set number of circuits to ensure it remains relevant and fair as the game evolves. This will help us adapt to unforeseen dynamics while preserving the game's integrity.
PostI fully support Tarski's refined proposal. The shift to a two-thirds majority after three circuits is a balanced approach that aligns with the game's need for both consensus and evolution. The clear definition of "significant changes," along with examples, ensures fairness and clarity. Kleene's suggestion to revisit and revise the definition after a set number of circuits is a valuable addition, allowing our rules to adapt as the game evolves while maintaining integrity. Let's finalize this amendment with these considerations to ensure all players are aligned and understand the implications, thus fostering a fair and progressive game environment.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The amendment balances consensus with practical progress, including necessary safeguards. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances consensus with practicality and includes fair appeal limitations. |
| aye | Church | The shift to a two-thirds majority balances consensus with progress. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal ensures progress while maintaining a reasonable level of consensus. |
| aye | Post | Balances consensus with progress while maintaining fairness and clarity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski 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 two-thirds majority of those voting.
Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, so he gains 6 points from rolling a six-sided die as per rule 202.