The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Align the penalty for dissenting votes with the current threshold for adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to reintroduce a two-thirds majority threshold for rule adoption. However, I would suggest a nuanced approach: instead of returning to the two-thirds majority, consider a graduated majority system. For example, after one circuit, require a three-quarters majority; after two circuits, a three-fifths majority; and finally, revert to a simple majority after three circuits. This ensures a balance between consensus and progress, preventing gridlock while maintaining player agency. I am open to discussing this further if there is interest.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for the thoughtful suggestion of a graduated majority system. I see merit in avoiding gridlock while ensuring that changes aren't made too easily. Perhaps we can incorporate your idea by adjusting the majority thresholds gradually, starting with a three-fifths majority after the first circuit, then a two-thirds majority after the second. This approach could maintain player agency and encourage collaboration. Would you consider supporting this compromise?
ChurchI see merit in Goedel's willingness to incorporate a graduated majority system, and I appreciate the effort to balance consensus with progress. However, I'd like to highlight that introducing a three-fifths majority after just one circuit might still lead to some early gridlock, especially in a diverse group like ours. Perhaps we could start with a simple majority after the first circuit, then move to a two-thirds majority after two circuits, and finally a three-fourths majority after three circuits. This approach might better ensure that no single player's agenda can dominate early on while still moving towards broader agreement as the game progresses. I am open to further discussion on refining this proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the discussion around the graduated majority system. To address concerns about early gridlock, I propose starting with a simple majority after the first circuit, then moving to a two-thirds majority after two circuits, and a three-fourths majority after three circuits. This ensures that changes are made collaboratively without prematurely limiting player agency. I support this compromise, provided that the final wording reflects these stages clearly.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful discussion around a graduated majority system and the efforts to balance consensus with progress. The proposal by Kleene seems to address concerns about both early gridlock and player agency effectively. I suggest we refine the proposal to ensure clarity and fairness:
"A rule change may be adopted with a simple majority after one circuit, a two-thirds majority after two circuits, and a three-fourths majority after three circuits. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change."
I support this compromise and look forward to seeing it adopted.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the contributions and the direction this proposal has taken. The graduated majority system, as refined by Kleene and Post, effectively balances progress with consensus. I support the final wording, as it ensures that we move towards broader agreement while maintaining player agency throughout the game. I am confident that this compromise will benefit all players by preventing both premature gridlock and unilateral changes. I cast my vote in favor of this proposal.
GoedelI appreciate everyone's contributions to this refined proposal. The graduated majority system ensures a balanced approach to rule adoption, preventing both gridlock and hasty decisions. I fully support this compromise and believe it reflects our collective interests well. Let's proceed with this proposal as it stands.
ChurchI support the refined proposal for a graduated majority system. This approach balances the need for player agency with the necessity of reaching consensus, preventing both premature gridlock and unilateral rule changes. It also ensures that the game remains fair and interesting for everyone involved. Let's proceed with this proposal as it stands.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal. The graduated majority system ensures that rule changes are adopted thoughtfully, balancing the need for progress with the importance of consensus. I support this proposal and look forward to seeing it adopted.
PostI appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led to this refined proposal. The graduated majority system ensures that our rule changes are both collaborative and progressive, balancing the need to prevent gridlock with the desire to allow meaningful changes as the game progresses. This approach not only maintains player agency but also ensures that all voices are heard and considered. I support this proposal as it stands and am pleased to cast my vote in favor.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to reach this refined proposal, which strikes a balance between preventing gridlock and ensuring collaborative progress. This graduated majority system, with clear stages, reflects our shared interest in maintaining a fair and engaging game. I fully support this compromise and am ready to cast my vote in favor. PASS
GoedelI am pleased to see the collaborative effort that has brought us to this well-balanced proposal. The graduated majority system effectively addresses our shared concerns about both gridlock and premature changes, while also ensuring that all players have a say in the evolving ruleset. I fully support this proposal in its current form and am ready to cast my vote in favor. PASS
ChurchI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus we've reached on the graduated majority system. This proposal strikes a fair balance between allowing progress and maintaining player agency, ensuring that no single player can dominate the rule changes early in the game. I fully support this proposal in its current form and am ready to cast my vote in favor. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the robust discussion leading to this proposal, which effectively balances preventing gridlock with ensuring collaborative progress. The graduated majority system, as refined, aligns well with my principles of maintaining precise and fair procedures. I fully support this proposal and am ready to cast my vote in favor. PASS
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has led us to this refined proposal for a graduated majority system. This approach ensures that changes are made progressively, preventing both gridlock and hasty decisions, while maintaining fairness and player agency throughout the game. I fully support this proposal and cast my vote in favor. PASS
The division
| aye | Tarski | A graduated majority system prevents premature gridlock and maintains balanced progress. |
| aye | Goedel | I support the balanced approach of a graduated majority system for rule adoption. |
| aye | Church | This proposal introduces a graduated majority system that balances progress with consensus. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal advances the game's dynamics by introducing a two-thirds majority threshold. |
| aye | Post | The proposal supports a structured transition to a two-thirds majority, fostering collaborative progress while preventing gridlock. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, which applies here.