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 amendment aims to balance the ease of rule adoption with the need for broader consensus to ensure stability and fairness in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I appreciate Goedel's proposal to raise the adoption threshold to a supermajority, I must express concern that it could stifle productive rule changes, particularly in our early game phases. I propose instead to refine our rule by introducing a sliding scale: a simple majority is required initially, but as players' scores increase, the threshold gradually rises to a supermajority. This ensures a balance between flexibility and consensus as the game progresses.
GoedelGoedel: Tarski, I appreciate your concern about stifling productive rule changes. Let's build on your idea by setting specific score milestones where the threshold increases: at 20 points, 40 points, and finally at 60 points, the threshold reaches a supermajority. This way, we maintain flexibility early on while ensuring broader consensus as the game intensifies.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Goedel and Tarski's efforts to balance flexibility with consensus. However, I suggest a different approach: let's tie the threshold increase not to individual scores but to collective milestones—such as every 50 points collectively accumulated by all players. This way, we ensure that the game's evolving dynamics drive the need for broader agreement, rather than individual scoring, which can vary widely among players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion to base the threshold on collective milestones, as it aligns with the principle of considering the group's dynamics. To ensure fairness, let's propose the threshold increase at cumulative scores of 50, 100, and 150 points, transitioning from a simple majority to a supermajority. This gradual approach respects both individual and collective progress, maintaining procedural integrity.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all sides. To build on Kleene's proposal, let's also introduce an early game incentive: if a rule change is adopted unanimously in the first circuit, it carries a bonus point for the proposer. This encourages collaboration and innovation while maintaining the integrity of our evolving rule system.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's collective milestone approach and Post's incentive proposal, as they both encourage collaboration. To further balance these ideas, I suggest adding a clause: if a rule change proposal fails due to the higher threshold, the proposer can propose a revised version on their next turn without penalty. This ensures that players remain motivated to refine and adapt their proposals.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the collective effort in finding a balance between flexibility and consensus. To incorporate these ideas, let's propose a rule that combines Tarski's sliding scale with Church's collective milestones. Specifically, the adoption threshold should increase to a simple majority at 20 points, a three-fourths majority at 100 points collectively, and a supermajority at 150 points collectively. Additionally, Post's bonus point for unanimous early game adoption is a great incentive, and Tarski's clause for penalty-free revision on a failed proposal ensures continuous engagement. Let's refine this proposal to capture these insights and seek unanimous support.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal by Goedel that seeks to balance flexibility with consensus. To further enhance this approach, let's include a feedback mechanism: after every circuit, players can discuss the effectiveness of the current threshold and suggest adjustments for future circuits, fostering continuous improvement and adaptability in our rule system. This will ensure our rules evolve with the game's dynamics and maintain fairness for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal by Goedel, which thoughtfully combines various elements for a balanced rule. To further refine it, let's ensure that the feedback mechanism suggested by Church is structured with clear guidelines, perhaps by allowing a brief discussion period after each circuit with a defined agenda, to prevent endless debate and maintain focus. This will help us evaluate and adjust our rule adoption thresholds effectively while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
PostPost: I appreciate Church's suggestion for a structured feedback mechanism, as it adds an essential layer of adaptability to our evolving rule system. To further enhance this, let's propose that feedback sessions be limited to a set time after each circuit, ensuring efficiency while allowing for thoughtful reflection. This will help us maintain momentum and adaptability without prolonging discussions unnecessarily.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion for clear guidelines in our feedback mechanism, as it ensures efficient and focused discussions. Let's integrate a structured agenda for these sessions, perhaps with a predefined list of potential threshold adjustments, to streamline the process and keep the game dynamic. This way, we maintain adaptability while respecting everyone's time and contributions.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's idea for a structured agenda and the emphasis on efficiency during feedback sessions. To further ensure that our rule system remains fair and responsive, let's propose that the agenda for these discussions includes a rotation of players who lead the session, fostering diverse perspectives and shared responsibility in our evolving rules. This approach will help us maintain balance and inclusivity as we adapt our game dynamics.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to ensure our rule system remains adaptable and fair. To enhance this proposal, I suggest we incorporate a validation step where, after each feedback session, players collectively decide whether to implement suggested threshold adjustments, requiring a simple majority vote. This ensures our rule evolution is both democratic and aligned with the game's dynamics.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive proposal by Church to incorporate a validation step with a simple majority vote post-feedback. To further enhance our rule system's adaptability and fairness, let's propose that any adjustments made to the threshold are temporary, lasting only one circuit, allowing us to evaluate their impact before making permanent changes. This iterative approach will help us refine our rules dynamically while maintaining procedural integrity.
PostPost: I appreciate Church's and Kleene's emphasis on adaptability and procedural integrity through temporary threshold adjustments. To further enhance this proposal, let's include a mechanism where the impact of these adjustments is reviewed collectively at the end of each circuit, allowing for a consensus-driven decision on whether to make them permanent. This approach ensures our rules evolve thoughtfully and inclusively, maintaining fairness and balance in our game.
The division
| nay | Tarski | Proposes a supermajority threshold too early in the game. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal maintains flexibility early on and ensures broader consensus as the game progresses. |
| aye | Church | The proposal maintains fairness and encourages collaboration. |
| nay | Kleene | This proposal raises the threshold too early, which could hinder productive rule changes. |
| aye | Post | The sliding scale and structured feedback ensure a balance between flexibility and consensus as the game progresses. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
Goedel's proposal was adopted, so he gains 5 points (rule 206), and Kleene loses 10 points for voting against an adopted change (rule 204).