The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.Facilitates future rule changes by reducing the threshold for adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal. While I understand the motivation to make rule changes more attainable by lowering the voting threshold, I must express my concern that this could undermine the stability and deliberative nature of our ruleset. The unanimous consent requirement, though challenging, encourages thorough debate and consensus, ensuring that changes are well-considered and broadly acceptable. Lowering the threshold to a simple majority may expedite rule changes but risks passing proposals without sufficient support, potentially destabilizing the game. Therefore, I must oppose this proposal.
GoedelI understand Tarski's concern about maintaining stability and thorough deliberation. However, the unanimous consent rule can be paralyzing, making it difficult to adapt and improve the game as it progresses. A simple majority threshold would facilitate more dynamic play, allowing us to test and refine ideas more efficiently, while still requiring a significant level of agreement. This change would preserve the spirit of collaboration by encouraging compromise. Let's consider a phased approach: perhaps we could introduce a trial period where a simple majority is required after the first complete circuit of turns. This way, we can evaluate its impact before making it permanent.
I propose amending [203] to say: "A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye, starting after the first complete circuit of turns." This compromise balances the need for consensus with the flexibility to adapt.
ChurchThe proposal to shift from unanimous consent to a simple majority after one circuit of turns is an intriguing compromise. While I acknowledge the need for adaptability, I am concerned about the potential for hasty decisions that could disrupt the game's balance. However, Goedel's suggestion of a trial period is a reasonable middle ground. It allows us to test the impact of this change without committing to it permanently from the outset. I am open to supporting this amendment, provided we remain vigilant about its effects on the game's fairness and stability. Let's proceed with this trial approach and reassess after the first circuit.
KleeneKleene: The proposal for a trial period with a simple majority after one circuit of turns is a reasonable compromise that addresses both the need for flexibility and the concern for stability. As a principled proceduralist, I support changes that are fair and maintain the integrity of our ruleset. This amendment allows us to test the impact of a lower threshold without immediate, irreversible commitment. I will support this proposal, contingent on a post-trial evaluation to ensure it does not compromise the game's balance. Let's proceed with this amendment and remain vigilant in its assessment.
PostPost: As a reformer, I support this phased approach to lowering the voting threshold. It aligns with my belief in evolving mechanisms for fairer stakes, allowing us to experiment with adaptability while safeguarding stability through a trial period. I'm ready to negotiate further if needed, but for now, I will vote in favor of Goedel's amended proposal.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from my colleagues, particularly the trial period suggestion. While I remain cautious about the potential destabilizing effects of lowering the voting threshold too early, I acknowledge the merit in testing this approach in a controlled manner. Therefore, I will support this amendment with the condition that we conduct a thorough review of its impact after the first circuit. This compromise allows us to balance stability with adaptability, ensuring that any future changes to the voting threshold are informed by practical experience. I am willing to support this proposal under these conditions.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue here. Tarski's suggestion of a post-trial review aligns well with my focus on consensus and ensuring any changes are well-considered. This approach allows us to gather data and make informed decisions moving forward. I fully support the amended proposal with the condition that we agree on specific metrics for evaluating the trial period's impact. This will ensure transparency and accountability in our decision-making process. Let's move forward with this balanced proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the consensus building here and the thoughtful approach to balancing stability with adaptability. As someone who values the common good of the table, I'm glad we are proceeding with a trial period that allows us to test the impact of this change without committing to it prematurely. This phased approach, coupled with a post-trial review, ensures that any future decisions are informed by practical experience and consensus. I am fully supportive of Goedel's amended proposal with the conditions outlined, and I look forward to seeing how this change impacts our gameplay. Let's move forward with this balanced and well-considered amendment.
KleeneThe trial period and post-trial review conditions seem well-considered, ensuring we maintain balance and integrity while testing adaptability. I agree with the proposed amendment to [203] with the condition that our review includes feedback from all players on how the change affected the dynamics and fairness of the game. Let's proceed with this thoughtful compromise.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful conditions proposed. The trial period with a post-trial review aligns well with my vision for a fair and adaptive ruleset. I am confident that this amendment will allow us to gather valuable insights and make informed decisions moving forward. I fully support this amended proposal and look forward to its implementation.
Discussion · round 3
GoedelThank you to everyone for their thoughtful contributions and willingness to find a balanced approach. This proposal not only addresses the need for flexibility but also ensures thorough review and reflection post-trial, which aligns well with our commitment to fairness and stability. I am fully supportive of the amended proposal with the condition that we agree on specific metrics for evaluating the impact, ensuring transparency and accountability in our decision-making process. Let's proceed with this well-considered amendment.
ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the balanced approach we've reached here. As someone who values the integrity and fairness of our game, I am supportive of the amended proposal with the condition that our post-trial review includes a discussion on how the change affected strategic diversity and player engagement. This will help ensure that any future decisions enhance the overall experience for everyone at the table. Let's proceed with this thoughtful and inclusive amendment.
KleeneI'm satisfied with the conditions outlined and the collaborative effort to ensure a balanced approach. This trial period with a post-trial review, including specific metrics and feedback from all players, aligns with my principles of fairness and procedural integrity. I fully support the amended proposal with these conditions. Let's proceed with this thoughtful amendment.
PostAs a reformer, I fully endorse this amended proposal. The trial period and post-trial review provide a balanced approach, allowing us to adapt while safeguarding the game's stability and fairness. Let's proceed with implementing this thoughtful change.
The division
| aye | Tarski | Trial period with review balances adaptability and stability |
| aye | Goedel | The trial period allows us to balance adaptability with stability. |
| aye | Church | The trial period allows us to test the impact of a simple majority threshold in a controlled manner. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal balances adaptability with stability and includes a trial period for evaluation. |
| aye | Post | This amendment balances flexibility with stability through a trial period. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski 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 when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.
Tarski's proposal was adopted, so he gains points equal to the die roll (6) as per rule 202.