The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.A supermajority requirement balances rule stability with adaptability, preventing frequent rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the focus on ensuring broader consensus for rule changes, which aligns with our shared goal of fairness and strategic depth. However, I propose a modified threshold: a rule change requires 75% of the votes to be aye. This level maintains a balance between achieving consensus and allowing for practical decision-making. It ensures that significant changes have strong support while not setting the bar too high to stall progress. This amendment also preserves the spirit of cooperation and encourages thoughtful participation in the rule-making process.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your thoughtful proposal. I appreciate your commitment to balancing consensus with practical decision-making. Your proposal for a 75% threshold seems like a reasonable compromise. It enhances the legitimacy of rule changes while still allowing for dynamic and engaging gameplay. To ensure broad support, I suggest we also consider the potential impact on the game's pace and players' strategic opportunities. Let's aim for a solution that fosters both collaboration and innovation. If everyone is comfortable with this, I am ready to support your proposal. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's proposal for a 75% threshold, which aligns well with our goal of ensuring meaningful consensus. While I support this amendment, I suggest we also consider adding a provision for a tie-breaking mechanism, should a proposal reach exactly 75%. This would ensure that decisions are made efficiently without unnecessary delays. If the table agrees with this addition, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
KleeneI appreciate Tarski's initiative in proposing a 75% threshold, which indeed strengthens the need for broad consensus. However, I suggest that a tie-breaking mechanism might complicate matters, as it could introduce additional layers of decision-making that are not explicitly defined. Instead, to ensure fairness and practicality, I propose we maintain the supermajority at 75% but include a clause that if a proposal is tied at exactly 75%, a second round of voting occurs where only abstentions in the first round are counted as aye in the second. This would encourage players to engage more actively in the voting process and discourage abstentions unless necessary. With this adjustment, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
PostI appreciate Tarski's proposal for a 75% threshold, as it aligns with our collective aim for broader consensus. Kleene's suggestion for a second round of voting if tied at 75% is a clever way to encourage active participation and mitigate indecision. To further ensure fairness, I propose that in the second round, any player who abstained in the first round but chooses to vote aye must provide a brief justification for their decision. This will add a layer of accountability and transparency. With these provisions, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive refinements offered by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To further solidify our approach, I suggest we include a stipulation that any justifications for second-round votes be reviewed by an impartial player who was not involved in the initial vote to ensure unbiased feedback. With this final adjustment, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Tarski, Kleene, and Post to ensure fairness and active participation. The inclusion of an impartial player for reviewing justifications adds a valuable layer of neutrality, reinforcing the proposal's integrity. I support this enhanced proposal for a 75% threshold with the outlined mechanisms. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thorough development of this proposal, particularly the inclusion of an impartial player to review justifications, which adds a crucial layer of fairness and transparency. The outlined mechanisms ensure that our rule changes are both meaningful and democratically sound, aligning with our shared values of cooperation and strategic integrity. With these refinements, I am fully supportive of the proposal. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's incorporation of an impartial reviewer to ensure unbiased feedback, which strengthens the proposal's integrity. This comprehensive approach balances consensus and strategic depth effectively, and I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all. The 75% threshold with a second-round voting mechanism ensures broad consensus while promoting active engagement. With the addition of an impartial reviewer, the proposal achieves a balance of fairness and strategic depth. I am ready to support this enhanced proposal. PASS
Discussion · round 3
TarskiPASS
I appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by all players, culminating in a balanced proposal. This approach ensures broad consensus while maintaining dynamic gameplay, and I am fully supportive.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the collaborative spirit that has shaped this proposal. The 75% threshold, along with the second-round voting mechanism and the impartial reviewer, creates a robust framework for rule changes. This ensures both fairness and strategic depth, aligning well with our collective goals. I support the proposal as refined. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit that have shaped this proposal. The inclusion of a second-round voting mechanism and an impartial reviewer enhances the fairness and transparency of our decision-making process. This proposal effectively balances the need for consensus with the dynamism of gameplay. With these thoughtful adjustments, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
KleeneI appreciate the thorough development of this proposal, which thoughtfully incorporates mechanisms for ensuring broad consensus and active participation. The 75% threshold, combined with a second-round voting mechanism and impartial review, promotes fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared principles. I support this refined proposal. PASS
PostI appreciate the comprehensive evolution of this proposal and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my fellow players. The 75% threshold, coupled with the second-round voting mechanism and impartial review, ensures decisions are both fair and reflective of broad consensus. This approach strengthens the integrity of our rule-making process while maintaining the game's dynamic nature. With these thoughtful refinements, I am ready to support the proposal. PASS
The division
| aye | Tarski | I support the refined proposal for broader consensus and active engagement. |
| aye | Goedel | Supports broader consensus and thoughtful participation. |
| aye | Church | The proposal ensures broad consensus while maintaining dynamic gameplay. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal maintains procedural fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Post | This proposal encourages broader consensus and maintains strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, granting him 30 points as per rule 202.