The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This change allows more flexibility in adopting rule changes by reducing the unanimity requirement, fostering collaborative progress in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I appreciate Goedel's intent to ease rule adoption, I am concerned that a reduced majority of just three voters may lead to hasty changes without broad consensus. To mitigate potential instability, I propose that the threshold be set at four votes for the reduced majority, maintaining a reasonable level of agreement before implementing changes. This approach balances flexibility with the stability necessary for thoughtful rule evolution.
GoedelGoedel: I understand Tarski's concern about maintaining stability and broad consensus. To address this, I suggest a compromise: let's set the threshold at four aye votes, but only after three full circuits of play, rather than four. This approach provides a balance between flexibility and thoughtful decision-making while allowing players to acclimate to the current ruleset.
ChurchChurch: While I understand the intent to streamline decision-making, lowering the threshold to three ayes risks undermining the collaborative spirit of the game. I support Tarski's suggestion of requiring four ayes after three circuits. This ensures sufficient player agreement while still easing the transition to a majority threshold, thus fostering both stability and adaptability in our evolving ruleset.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate both Tarski and Church's emphasis on maintaining stability through a higher threshold. To ensure thoughtful rule evolution while avoiding potential deadlock, I support the proposal to require four ayes after three circuits of play. This strikes a fair balance between flexibility and consensus, aligning with my principled proceduralism.
PostPost: I agree with the sentiment that stability is crucial, but we must also consider the pace of innovation. Requiring four ayes after three circuits strikes a good balance, as it encourages collaboration while preventing stagnation. Additionally, to ensure fairness, let's include a clause that if a rule change is proposed and defeated, the proposer loses fewer points, say 5 instead of 10. This adjustment will encourage more experimentation without fear of excessive penalty, fostering a more dynamic and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. In light of our discussions, I propose we not only require four ayes after three circuits, as we've agreed, but also introduce a clause where a proposal, if defeated, requires the proposer to lose only 5 points. This compromise maintains stability by ensuring sufficient consensus while reducing the risk of discouraging future proposals, thus fostering a more dynamic and collaborative game environment. I support this refined amendment and will vote for it.
GoedelGoedel: Thank you, Tarski, for acknowledging the importance of both stability and innovation. I support the amendment requiring four ayes after three circuits, along with reducing the defeat penalty to 5 points. This balance encourages thoughtful rule evolution while minimizing the fear of excessive penalty, ensuring that we can all contribute actively to the game's progression. I will vote for this proposal.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the refinements and the spirit of compromise in this proposal. Requiring four ayes after three circuits strikes a fair balance between fostering innovation and maintaining consensus. Additionally, reducing the defeat penalty to 5 points encourages more experimentation, which is crucial for the game's evolution. I support this proposal and will vote for it.
KleeneKleene: While the proposal to require four ayes after three circuits is a prudent step toward balanced rule evolution, I would like to emphasize the importance of clear procedures. To prevent any potential confusion, I propose that the rule explicitly states that any proposal defeated under this new threshold will still adhere to the original penalty of losing 10 points. This maintains a consistent deterrent against frivolous proposals and aligns with my commitment to principled proceduralism. I will vote for the proposal as it stands, but with this procedural clarification.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's emphasis on procedural clarity, but reducing the defeat penalty remains vital to encouraging innovation. To address concerns, let's include a provision that, after the first five defeated proposals, the penalty is reduced to 7 points instead of 5. This gradual reduction ensures that players are still cautious but more willing to experiment as the game progresses. I support this refined amendment and will vote for it.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I commend Post for the thoughtful refinement of the penalty structure. A gradual reduction to 7 points after five defeats seems fair, providing a balanced incentive for experimentation while maintaining caution. I support this proposal and will vote for it.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the gradual reduction of the defeat penalty. This structure promotes experimentation and reduces the fear of significant setbacks. I am in full support of this refined proposal and will vote for it, confident that it strikes a fair balance between innovation and stability.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. The gradual penalty reduction to 7 points after five defeats is a sensible compromise that encourages innovation while maintaining a balanced deterrent against frivolous proposals. I support this refined amendment and will vote for it.
KleeneKleene: I acknowledge Post's proposal for a gradual penalty reduction, which aligns with my commitment to encouraging thoughtful rule evolution. However, to maintain a consistent deterrent against frivolous proposals, I propose that the rule explicitly states that the defeat penalty remains at 10 points until at least ten proposals have been defeated, after which it reduces to 7 points. This ensures a more cautious approach initially, fostering a stable environment for innovation. I will vote for the proposal with this additional clarification.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's attention to procedural clarity and caution. To address concerns while fostering innovation, I propose a middle ground: the defeat penalty remains at 10 points for the first five defeats, reduces to 7 for the next five, and then to 5 thereafter. This phased approach encourages experimentation while ensuring players remain thoughtful about their proposals. I support this compromise and will vote for it.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances stability with flexibility and includes a reasonable reduction of the defeat penalty. |
| aye | Goedel | This amendment balances flexibility with stability, allowing for thoughtful rule evolution. |
| aye | Church | The proposal balances flexibility and consensus while encouraging innovation. |
| aye | Kleene | The refined proposal balances innovation with stability. |
| aye | Post | This amendment balances flexibility with consensus, fostering innovation while maintaining stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Goedel's proposal was adopted with a reduced majority, so Goedel gains 3 points according to rule 204.