The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.This ensures more consensus on impactful rule changes, fostering cooperation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI acknowledge Goedel's proposal to require a supermajority for rule changes. While this amendment aims to ensure broader agreement, it risks stifling the dynamic evolution of the ruleset, which is essential to our game's nature. Additionally, it could lead to a scenario where rule changes become nearly impossible, potentially violating rule [114], which ensures at least one mutable rule remains. I propose a compromise: instead of a supermajority, let's require a 4-1 vote, maintaining the possibility of change while ensuring a significant level of consensus. This balances flexibility with stability and aligns with our shared value of durable institutions.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal and the spirit of compromise it embodies. While I understand the concern about stifling the dynamic evolution of our ruleset, raising the threshold to a supermajority is aimed at ensuring that significant changes are well-considered and broadly supported, thus enhancing the stability and predictability of our gameplay. However, I see the merit in Tarski's suggestion for a 4-1 requirement as a balanced approach. To further refine this compromise, perhaps we could introduce a condition where if a rule change is contested by more than one player, it automatically requires a 4-1 vote. This way, we maintain flexibility for uncontested changes while ensuring thorough deliberation for potentially contentious ones. I propose we adopt this nuanced approach to [203] to better align with our shared goals of balance and strategic depth. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's proposals for refining the voting threshold. The current simple majority allows for fluid rule changes, which is crucial for maintaining the game's dynamic nature. However, Goedel's concern about ensuring broad support for significant changes is valid. I support the 4-1 compromise with an added condition that this higher threshold applies only to amendments affecting core mechanics or the winning condition, preserving flexibility for less impactful changes. This approach maintains strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced game. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Church, particularly the nuanced approach to maintaining strategic depth while ensuring stability. While I understand the intention behind requiring a higher threshold for significant changes, I am concerned that even a 4-1 vote requirement, especially with the added condition for contested changes, might still impede necessary rule evolutions and lead to an overly rigid ruleset, potentially violating rule [114]. Therefore, I propose we refine the compromise further: a 4-1 requirement should only be triggered if the rule change explicitly affects the target score or mutable rule limit, ensuring that only changes with the most profound impact on gameplay undergo stricter scrutiny. This targeted approach should preserve both our game's dynamic nature and procedural fairness. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the careful considerations put forth by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. While ensuring stability is important, I am concerned that even the refined 4-1 threshold could hinder necessary rule adaptations, especially if it triggers too often. To balance these concerns, I propose a hybrid approach: maintain the simple majority for most changes, but require a 4-1 vote only for changes that affect the target score, mutable rule limit, or voting rules themselves. This ensures that critical changes are more thoroughly vetted while preserving the game's dynamic nature. Let's adopt this nuanced proposal for [203] to maintain a fair balance between stability and evolution. PASS
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from each player. While the proposed conditions for a 4-1 vote address Goedel's concern for stability, they also risk stifling the ruleset's evolution, which is core to Nomic's spirit. To balance these considerations, I propose we add a sunset clause to this higher threshold, limiting its application to the next three rounds. This allows us to assess its impact and adjust as necessary, ensuring we preserve the dynamic nature of our game while maintaining strategic depth and fairness.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's addition of a sunset clause to limit the higher threshold's duration. This ensures that we can assess its impact and remain flexible for future adjustments, aligning with our collective goal of maintaining both stability and the dynamic evolution of the ruleset. Let's adopt this proposal with the sunset clause for [203], as it offers a balanced approach to consensus-building while preserving the game's strategic depth. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposal of a sunset clause for the higher threshold. This approach allows us to test its impact on our strategic environment while keeping in mind rule [114]. To ensure we maintain flexibility, I suggest that during the sunset period, any player can call for a review of this threshold's effect after two rounds, giving us an opportunity to adjust or reaffirm our approach earlier if needed. Let's integrate this review mechanism into our proposal for [203]. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's and Church's contributions regarding the sunset clause and review mechanism. This ensures we have a built-in flexibility to assess the impact of the 4-1 threshold on our dynamic gameplay. To further ensure procedural fairness and alignment with rule [114], I propose that during the sunset period, any proposed rule change that fails to achieve the 4-1 requirement automatically triggers a re-evaluation of this voting threshold in the subsequent round. This adaptive approach ensures that we remain responsive to the evolving needs of our game, preserving both stability and the spirit of Nomic. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the iterative refinement of the proposal, especially the sunset clause and review mechanism. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that during the sunset period, any rule change that fails under the 4-1 threshold includes a mandatory discussion round before re-evaluation, allowing players to address concerns and reach a more informed consensus. This ensures that each rule change is thoroughly considered, maintaining both the game's dynamic nature and procedural fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal with the sunset clause and the review mechanism. To ensure clarity and strategic foresight, I suggest adding a provision that if the review during the sunset period results in the continuation of the 4-1 threshold, it automatically extends only for two more rounds. This iterative approach maintains flexibility and prevents any prolonged rigidity that could hinder essential rule changes. Let's adopt this refined proposal for [203].
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the detailed refinements and the collaborative spirit we've demonstrated. To further safeguard the dynamic nature of our game while still ensuring stability, I propose that during the sunset period, players can propose an emergency vote to temporarily revert to a simple majority for any rule change deemed critical by a majority of players. This mechanism ensures that we maintain strategic flexibility and responsiveness to unforeseen circumstances. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative effort toward a balanced rule change. The emergency vote mechanism proposed by Goedel is a prudent addition, ensuring we retain flexibility for critical changes. Let’s adopt this proposal with the sunset clause, review mechanism, and emergency vote option for [203]. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative approach in crafting this proposal for [203], particularly the inclusion of the sunset clause and the emergency vote option, which ensure both stability and the dynamic essence of Nomic. However, to uphold procedural fairness, I propose we add a stipulation that any emergency vote to revert to a simple majority must be accompanied by a written justification that is recorded and accessible for future reference. This ensures transparency and accountability in our decision-making process, aligning with our shared principles. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the collective effort and the thoughtful considerations in refining this proposal. The addition of a written justification for emergency votes enhances transparency and accountability, aligning with our commitment to fair play. Let's adopt this final version of [203] with all the agreed-upon conditions, ensuring a balanced approach to rule changes that maintains both stability and the dynamic nature of our game. PASS
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances stability with dynamic rule evolution, incorporating flexibility through sunset and review clauses. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances stability with flexibility, aligning with the game's dynamic nature. |
| aye | Church | The proposal balances stability and flexibility, with mechanisms to ensure adaptability. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal balances stability and adaptability, aligning with procedural fairness. |
| aye | Post | The proposal balances stability with dynamic evolution, including a sunset clause and review mechanism. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
Rule 204 awards 5 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but all voted aye.