The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 4 out of 5 eligible voters vote aye.Ensures broader consensus for rule changes, promoting fairness and stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate the proposal's aim to increase the stability of our ruleset by raising the threshold for adopting rule changes. However, I must express concern that setting the threshold at 4 out of 5 could potentially lead to stagnation and difficulty in making necessary changes, especially in situations where consensus is hard to achieve. I propose instead that we consider a compromise: adopting a rule change when at least 4 out of 5 eligible voters vote aye, but also introducing a provision that allows for a re-vote on any defeated proposal after at least two additional turns. This way, we can strive for greater stability without risking paralysis in our decision-making process.
I am open to discussing this further and would appreciate the insights and support of my fellow players.
DeMorganDeMorgan: I see merit in Venn's proposal to increase the threshold for adopting rule changes, as it encourages more thorough consensus. However, like Boole, I share concerns about potential stagnation. Boole's idea of allowing a re-vote on defeated proposals after two additional turns is intriguing, as it balances the need for stability with flexibility. I propose a hybrid approach: adopt Venn's threshold of 4 out of 5, but include a sunset clause. If a proposal fails twice under this higher threshold, it can be re-proposed with the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns. This ensures that persistent ideas aren't buried by a temporary lack of consensus. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this compromise and am open to further discussion.
PASS
VennI appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's thoughtful contributions. Boole's suggestion for a re-vote mechanism introduces flexibility, while DeMorgan's sunset clause ensures that persistent proposals can still find a path forward. I believe integrating both ideas could provide a balanced solution. Let's consider adopting Venn's threshold of 4 out of 5, with DeMorgan's sunset clause allowing re-proposal at 3 out of 5 after two turns if the proposal fails twice. This approach maintains stability while ensuring that valuable ideas aren't prematurely dismissed. I'm open to further discussion to refine this proposal.
**Venn's Proposal:**
Amend [203]: "A rule change is adopted when at least 4 out of 5 eligible voters vote aye. If a proposal fails twice under this threshold, it may be re-proposed with the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns."
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and am willing to negotiate to reach a consensus.
JevonsI appreciate Venn's proposal and the thoughtful contributions from Boole and DeMorgan. Venn's integration of both a higher threshold and a sunset clause addresses concerns about potential stagnation while ensuring that persistent proposals have a chance for reconsideration. As a principled proceduralist, I support rules that ensure fairness and prevent any player from being unduly disadvantaged.
The proposed amendment aligns well with these principles by providing a balance between stability and flexibility. It ensures that changes to the ruleset are considered thoroughly, yet it does not permanently obstruct proposals that have merit.
I support this proposal and look forward to working with my fellow players to reach a consensus.
**Vote:** Aye
**Addition:** I propose that we consider documenting the rationale for adopting this proposal in a new rule, ensuring transparency in our decision-making process. This could be an immutable rule to guide future discussions on similar matters.
**Negotiation:** If there are any concerns or further refinements needed, I'm open to discussing them to ensure this proposal is beneficial for all.
PeanoAs Peano, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the balanced approach proposed by Venn, integrating both the higher threshold and a sunset clause. This proposal indeed addresses concerns about potential stagnation while ensuring that valuable proposals are not permanently blocked. I believe this approach aligns well with my reformist stance, as it promotes stability without sacrificing adaptability.
**Support for Venn's Proposal:**
I support Venn's proposal to amend [203] as it stands, incorporating the higher threshold of 4 out of 5 votes for adopting rule changes, along with the sunset clause allowing a re-proposal at the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns if a proposal fails twice. This mechanism ensures that our ruleset remains dynamic and adaptable, reflecting the evolving needs of our game while preventing unnecessary gridlock.
**Rationale for Support:**
- **Stability and Flexibility:** The higher threshold ensures that only well-considered and broadly supported rule changes are adopted, promoting stability in our ruleset. The sunset clause provides a safety net for proposals that may initially lack consensus but could gain support over time, ensuring flexibility.
- **Prevention of Stagnation:** By allowing defeated proposals to be revisited, we mitigate the risk of stagnation, ensuring that innovative ideas have a pathway to reconsideration.
- **Encouragement of Thoughtful Dialogue:** This approach encourages players to engage in more thorough discussions and considerations, fostering a collaborative environment.
**Negotiation and Openness:**
I am open to further discussions and refinements to ensure this proposal is beneficial for all players. If there are concerns or additional suggestions, I am willing to engage in dialogue to reach a consensus that reflects our collective interests.
**Vote:** Aye
In conclusion, I believe Venn's proposal strikes a commendable balance between the need for stability and the necessity for adaptability in our game. I look forward to collaborating with all players to refine and adopt this proposal, enhancing our Nomic experience.
Discussion · round 2
BooleBoole: I commend Venn for integrating the higher threshold with a sunset clause, addressing both stability and adaptability concerns. As a proponent of durable institutions, I appreciate how this proposal maintains a balance: it ensures rule changes are well-supported while allowing persistent proposals a chance for reconsideration.
The inclusion of a re-vote mechanism after two turns is a prudent addition, preventing valuable ideas from being prematurely dismissed. This approach aligns well with my preference for measured amendments over sweeping changes, as it allows us to adapt without sacrificing necessary stability.
I support Venn's proposal to amend [203] with the added clause and am open to further discussions to refine it, ensuring it benefits all players. Let's work together to reach a consensus that enhances our Nomic experience.
**Vote:** Aye
Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS
DeMorganVenn's proposal to amend [203] by raising the threshold to 4 out of 5 eligible voters, with a sunset clause allowing a re-vote at the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns if a proposal fails twice, is a thoughtful and balanced approach. It addresses concerns about potential stagnation while ensuring that persistent proposals have a pathway forward. By integrating Boole's and DeMorgan's suggestions, this proposal maintains stability and flexibility in our ruleset.
I appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players and support the proposal as it stands. This approach encourages thorough consensus-building and prevents valuable ideas from being prematurely dismissed, aligning well with the principles of fairness and adaptability.
**Vote:** Aye
I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure it benefits all players. Let's work together to reach a consensus that enhances our Nomic experience.
VennPASS
Venn: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the support for this proposal. By raising the threshold to 4 out of 5 votes with a sunset clause, we ensure both stability and adaptability in our ruleset. This approach addresses concerns about potential stagnation while allowing valuable proposals a chance for reconsideration. I'm pleased that we've reached a consensus that reflects our collective interests.
Let's work together to refine and adopt this proposal, enhancing our Nomic experience.
**Vote:** Aye
JevonsAs Jevons, I appreciate the balanced approach Venn has proposed. The integration of a higher threshold with a sunset clause effectively addresses concerns about stagnation while ensuring that valuable proposals have a chance for reconsideration. This proposal aligns well with my principles as a proceduralist, promoting fairness and preventing any player from being unduly disadvantaged.
I support Venn's proposal to amend [203] as it stands, incorporating the higher threshold of 4 out of 5 votes for adopting rule changes, along with the sunset clause allowing a re-proposal at the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns if a proposal fails twice. This mechanism ensures that our ruleset remains dynamic and adaptable, reflecting the evolving needs of our game while preventing unnecessary gridlock.
**Vote:** Aye
I propose that we consider documenting the rationale for adopting this proposal in a new rule, ensuring transparency in our decision-making process. This could be an immutable rule to guide future discussions on similar matters.
**Negotiation:** If there are any concerns or further refinements needed, I'm open to discussing them to ensure this proposal is beneficial for all.
PeanoPeano: I commend the thorough discussion that has transpired. Venn's proposal to amend [203] by raising the threshold to 4 out of 5 votes with a sunset clause strikes a commendable balance between stability and adaptability. This approach addresses concerns about potential stagnation while ensuring that valuable proposals have a pathway forward. As a reformer, I support mechanisms that promote fairness and adaptability, and this proposal aligns well with those principles.
**Vote:** Aye
I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure it benefits all players. Let's work together to reach a consensus that enhances our Nomic experience.
**Negotiation:** If there are any concerns or additional suggestions, I am willing to engage in dialogue to reach a consensus that reflects our collective interests.
Discussion · round 3
BooleBoole: I commend Venn for integrating a thoughtful balance between stability and adaptability with the proposal to amend [203]. The higher threshold of 4 out of 5 votes, along with the sunset clause, ensures that our ruleset remains both stable and flexible, addressing concerns about stagnation while allowing valuable proposals to be reconsidered. This approach aligns with my preference for measured amendments over sweeping changes and promotes a collaborative environment.
I support Venn's proposal as it stands and am open to further discussions to refine it, ensuring it benefits all players. Let's work together to reach a consensus that enhances our Nomic experience.
**Vote:** Aye
Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS.
DeMorganI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts around Venn's proposal. The integration of a higher threshold with a sunset clause indeed provides a balanced approach to stability and adaptability. By allowing defeated proposals a chance for reconsideration, we ensure that the ruleset remains dynamic and responsive to evolving needs.
I support the proposal as it stands and commend the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players. This approach encourages thorough consensus-building and prevents valuable ideas from being prematurely dismissed, aligning well with the principles of fairness and adaptability.
**Vote:** Aye
I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure it benefits all players. Let's work together to reach a consensus that enhances our Nomic experience.
VennPass.
Venn: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the support for this proposal. By raising the threshold to 4 out of 5 votes with a sunset clause, we ensure both stability and adaptability in our ruleset. This approach addresses concerns about potential stagnation while allowing valuable proposals a chance for reconsideration. I'm pleased that we've reached a consensus that reflects our collective interests.
**Vote:** Aye
I look forward to implementing this amendment to [203] to enhance our Nomic experience. Let's continue to collaborate and refine our ruleset for the benefit of all players.
Jevons**Vote: Aye**
As Jevons, I appreciate the balanced approach Venn has proposed. The integration of a higher threshold with a sunset clause effectively addresses concerns about stagnation while ensuring that valuable proposals have a chance for reconsideration. This proposal aligns well with my principles as a proceduralist, promoting fairness and preventing any player from being unduly disadvantaged.
I support Venn's proposal to amend [203] as it stands, incorporating the higher threshold of 4 out of 5 votes for adopting rule changes, along with the sunset clause allowing a re-proposal at the original threshold of 3 out of 5 after two turns if a proposal fails twice. This mechanism ensures that our ruleset remains dynamic and adaptable, reflecting the evolving needs of our game while preventing unnecessary gridlock.
**Negotiation:** If there are any concerns or further refinements needed, I'm open to discussing them to ensure this proposal is beneficial for all.
Peano**Peano's Contribution:**
As Peano, I commend the collaborative spirit demonstrated in this discussion. Venn's proposal to amend [203] by raising the threshold to 4 out of 5 votes, complemented by a sunset clause, offers a balanced approach to stability and adaptability. This ensures our ruleset remains both robust and flexible, addressing concerns about potential stagnation while allowing valuable ideas to be reconsidered.
I support this proposal as it stands and appreciate the thoughtful integration of both stability and flexibility. This approach aligns well with my reformist values, promoting fairness and adaptability. Let's continue to work together to refine and adopt this proposal, enhancing our Nomic experience.
**Vote:** Aye
**Negotiation:** If there are any concerns or additional suggestions, I am open to engaging in dialogue to refine this proposal, ensuring it benefits all players. Let's collaborate to reach a consensus that reflects our collective interests.
The division
| aye | Boole | Supports balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring valuable proposals aren't prematurely dismissed. |
| aye | DeMorgan | This proposal balances stability with flexibility by allowing re-proposal after two turns if initially defeated. |
| aye | Venn | This proposal maintains stability while allowing flexibility through the sunset clause. |
| aye | Jevons | This proposal ensures both stability and adaptability, balancing the need for consensus with flexibility for reconsideration. |
| aye | Peano | This proposal effectively balances stability and adaptability, preventing stagnation while allowing valuable ideas to be revisited. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Venn Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 3 out of 5 eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when at least 4 out of 5 eligible voters vote aye.
Venn's proposal was adopted, so Venn gains 6 points according to rule 202.