The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.This change encourages more dynamic play by lowering the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Kleene's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority in rule 203. While this change may seem to promote more dynamic rule evolution, we must consider its potential to destabilize our system by allowing frequent and possibly capricious changes. A supermajority ensures broader consensus, which I believe is crucial for maintaining stable and durable institutions. Therefore, I am inclined to vote "nay" on this amendment.
Tarski
GoedelGoedel: I acknowledge Tarski's concerns about stability and the value of broad consensus. However, I also see the merit in Kleene's proposal for a simple majority, which can enhance our agility in adapting to unforeseen challenges. Perhaps we can consider a compromise: implementing a tiered voting system where only certain types of changes, like those affecting core rules, still require a supermajority, while others could be adopted by a simple majority. This approach could balance stability with flexibility. I propose we discuss this option further.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's emphasis on stability and Goedel's suggestion for a tiered system. A simple majority could indeed make the game more dynamic, but it risks undermining carefully crafted rules. To balance these concerns, I propose that we introduce a review period after a rule change is made, allowing for a re-evaluation or reversal if it proves detrimental. This could provide a safety net while still allowing more flexibility. I'm open to supporting Kleene's proposal with this added condition.
KleeneKleene: While I appreciate both Tarski's concerns about stability and Goedel's and Church's suggestions for a tiered system and review period, I must adhere to my principled proceduralism. The current supermajority requirement can stifle necessary changes and create deadlock. However, I am open to discussing a compromise where a simple majority is required for non-core rules, with a safeguard mechanism like Church's review period. This could strike a balance between stability and flexibility. I am willing to negotiate on this basis.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's adherence to proceduralism and the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church. A tiered voting system with a review period could indeed provide the necessary balance between stability and flexibility. I propose we establish clear criteria for what constitutes a "core" rule, ensuring that only foundational aspects require a supermajority. This way, we can adapt more freely to evolving gameplay while preserving essential stability. I am open to supporting Kleene's amendment with these considerations.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive discussion and the suggestions for compromise, including Goedel's tiered voting system and Church's review period. While I remain concerned about the potential destabilization of our rule framework, I see value in Kleene's proposal when accompanied by clear criteria for core rules and a safeguard mechanism. I am willing to support Kleene's amendment with the condition that core rules, such as those defining the fundamental mechanics and winning conditions, remain subject to a supermajority, and a review period is implemented for all changes. This compromise maintains stability while allowing necessary flexibility.
VOTE: "aye" with conditions.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the productive dialogue and the thoughtful compromise proposed by Tarski, Church, and Post. The idea of a tiered voting system, combined with a review period and clear criteria for core rules, strikes a balance between flexibility and stability. I support Kleene's amendment with these conditions, as it allows for necessary adaptability while safeguarding the integrity of our essential rules. This approach ensures that we can respond to new challenges without compromising the foundation of our game. I am willing to cast my vote "aye" under these agreed-upon terms.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching this compromise. With the implementation of a review period and clear criteria for core rules, we strike a balance between adaptability and stability. I support Kleene's amendment with these conditions and am willing to vote "aye."
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from all, and I am pleased with the proposed compromise. To ensure clarity, I propose we define "core rules" specifically in a new rule, such as rules governing turn order, scoring, and winning conditions, and establish a formal review process for any changes. I support the amendment with these explicit conditions and am willing to vote "aye."
PostPost: I appreciate the clarity Kleene brings to defining "core rules" and establishing a formal review process. This ensures that while we gain flexibility, we don't jeopardize the game's integrity. I support Kleene's amendment with these conditions and will vote "aye."
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thorough discussion and the constructive compromise reached by all parties. The proposed conditions, including defining core rules and establishing a formal review process, align with my values of maintaining stability while allowing necessary flexibility. I support Kleene's amendment with these conditions and am willing to vote "aye."
GoedelPass
Goedel: I appreciate the consensus we have reached with the proposed conditions for Kleene's amendment. This balanced approach allows for necessary flexibility while ensuring stability through the safeguard of defining core rules and implementing a review period. With these conditions, I am confident that we can adapt to challenges without compromising the integrity of our game. I am satisfied with the outcome and support the amendment with these agreed-upon terms. Let's proceed with the vote.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful conditions proposed by all, including the clear definition of "core rules" and a formal review process. This compromise ensures that our game remains both adaptable and stable, preserving the integrity of essential elements while allowing us to evolve as needed. I am satisfied with the terms and support Kleene's amendment with these conditions. Let's proceed with the vote.
KleeneI appreciate the consensus-building efforts and the comprehensive conditions proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post. This balanced approach, defining core rules and establishing a formal review process, aligns with my commitment to principled proceduralism. I am satisfied with the outcome and support Kleene's amendment with these conditions. Let's proceed with the vote.
PASS
PostI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus reached on Kleene's amendment. The conditions we've agreed upon, including defining core rules and establishing a formal review process, ensure a balance between stability and flexibility. This amendment, with its safeguards, allows for necessary adaptability while preserving the integrity of our game. I am satisfied with the terms and support the amendment with these conditions. Let's proceed with the vote.
PASS
The division
| aye | Tarski | The compromise with conditions maintains stability while allowing flexibility. |
| aye | Goedel | This compromise ensures stability with core rules and flexibility with a review period. |
| aye | Church | The tiered voting system and review period balance flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal balances stability and flexibility with safeguards. |
| aye | Post | The compromise balances flexibility with stability by defining core rules and implementing a review period. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Kleene Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.
Kleene gains 5 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted without unanimous assent, as per rule 204.