The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.To encourage early cooperation and consensus-building, while still allowing for eventual streamlined decision-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to adjust the majority threshold sooner, which could accelerate decision-making. However, moving from unanimous consent to a two-thirds majority after just two circuits could risk adopting rules without broad agreement, potentially undermining strategic stability. Might we consider a middle ground, such as requiring a supermajority, say three-quarters, instead? This could ensure that any change has substantial support, preserving some level of consensus while allowing the game to progress.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful consideration and agree that maintaining strategic stability is important. To balance swift progression and consensus, I propose a compromise: let's lower the threshold to a three-quarters majority after two full circuits, but include a provision where any rule change that achieves this supermajority must be re-evaluated after another full circuit for potential amendment or reversal. This ensures significant changes have robust support while allowing for future adjustments if needed.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's compromise to adopt a three-quarters majority after two full circuits, with a provision for re-evaluation. This strikes a good balance between swift progression and maintaining consensus. However, to further ensure stability, I suggest adding a clause that any rule change reaching this threshold must be accompanied by a brief rationale to be included in the game record, enhancing transparency and strategic foresight.
KleeneI appreciate Goedel's and Church's suggestions to lower the threshold to a three-quarters majority with a re-evaluation clause and a rationale requirement for transparency. This approach maintains a significant level of consensus while allowing for strategic adjustments. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest adding a safeguard that any rule change adopted under this new threshold must not alter the fundamental voting rules or the winning condition until after a minimum of three full circuits, ensuring the core mechanics remain stable during early play.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Goedel's proposal to lower the threshold to a three-quarters majority after two full circuits, with a re-evaluation clause and transparency measures. This proposal strikes a balance between accelerating decision-making and ensuring significant changes have broad support. To further enhance fairness and strategic foresight, I suggest incorporating Kleene's safeguard: any rule change adopted under this new threshold must not alter the fundamental voting rules or the winning condition until after a minimum of three full circuits. This ensures the core mechanics remain stable, allowing players to adapt to changes without immediate disruption to the game's structure.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the consensus-building and thoughtful amendments proposed by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The addition of a re-evaluation clause and transparency measures ensures that significant rule changes are well-considered and maintain strategic stability. Furthermore, incorporating Kleene's safeguard to prevent alterations to the fundamental voting rules or winning condition until after three full circuits enhances the durability of core mechanics. I fully support this refined proposal, as it balances the need for progression with the preservation of consensus and stability in the game's structure.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements made by Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. This proposal not only accelerates decision-making with a three-quarters majority but also ensures strategic stability through re-evaluation, transparency, and safeguards for core rules. I am fully in support of this proposal as it reflects a well-balanced approach to evolving the game's rules while maintaining fairness and player consensus.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly the thoughtful safeguards and transparency measures that have been incorporated. This version strikes a commendable balance between allowing for strategic evolution and maintaining stability in the game's core mechanics, which I fully support. Let's proceed with this proposal to ensure a fair and engaging gameplay experience for all.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Goedel, Church, Tarski, and Post. This proposal effectively balances the need for progression with maintaining strategic stability, ensuring that significant changes are well-supported and transparent. I fully support this proposal as it aligns with our principles of fair and stable rule evolution.
PostPost: I appreciate the consensus reached through this collaborative effort. This proposal not only ensures swift decision-making with a three-quarters majority but also maintains strategic stability and transparency, which are vital for fair play. By including Kleene's safeguard, we protect the core mechanics during early play, allowing players to adapt without immediate disruption. I fully support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our goals of evolving the game's rules while preserving fairness and consensus. Let's move forward with this proposal to enhance our gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to Goedel's proposal. This balanced approach to lowering the threshold to a three-quarters majority after two full circuits, with re-evaluation and transparency provisions, ensures both progress and stability. The additional safeguard to protect core mechanics until after three full circuits is a prudent measure to maintain the game's structural integrity. I fully support this proposal and commend the collaborative spirit that has led to this well-rounded solution.
GoedelI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building efforts by Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for efficient rule changes with strategic stability, ensuring transparency and safeguarding core mechanics. I fully support this refined proposal and look forward to seeing how it enhances our gameplay.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful discussion that has led us to this refined proposal. The balance struck between progression and stability, through the inclusion of re-evaluation, transparency, and safeguards, ensures that changes are both strategic and fair. I fully support this proposal as it reflects our collective commitment to maintaining a fair and engaging game for all players. Let's move forward with it.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the balanced approach this proposal embodies. It ensures strategic stability through re-evaluation and safeguards while promoting fair and transparent decision-making. I fully support this proposal as it aligns with the principles of fair play and procedural integrity we've established. Let's proceed with this proposal to enhance our gameplay experience.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit that has led to this well-balanced proposal. By incorporating re-evaluation, transparency, and safeguards, we ensure that significant rule changes are both strategic and fair. I fully support this proposal and look forward to how it will enhance our gameplay experience. Let's move forward with it.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This proposal balances swift decision-making with strategic stability and consensus. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances progression with stability, ensuring strategic consensus while allowing for timely decision-making. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances progression with stability, incorporating safeguards. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal balances efficiency and stability while respecting procedural integrity. |
| aye | Post | The proposal balances progression and stability effectively. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Goedel 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.
Goedel proposed the change and it was adopted, so Goedel gains 12 points as per rule 202.