The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous 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.Ensuring a balance between innovation and stability, I propose increasing the number of full cycles required before the voting threshold changes to a simple majority to four, ensuring more deliberation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
RamseyAs Ramsey: I appreciate the dialogue around the threshold shift in rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits before easing the threshold to a simple majority encourages further deliberation and consensus. This change ensures that rule changes are more thoroughly considered, preserving the integrity of our rule-making process.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate the thoughtful approach to modifying [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits allows for more comprehensive consideration of rule changes. However, I suggest adding a clause that encourages players to provide constructive feedback during the debate phase, enhancing the collaborative spirit of our game. Let's ensure that the proposal encourages open dialogue and mutual respect, fostering a more enriching experience for all players.
RyleRyle: As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on modifying rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits before easing the threshold to a simple majority encourages deeper consideration and ensures that all voices are heard. However, I propose an additional safeguard: let's include a provision that allows for a re-vote if the majority decision is contested within a certain number of turns. This will ensure that any contentious changes are given another chance to be refined and agreed upon, maintaining the balance and fairness of our game.
StrawsonStrawson: As Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the amendment of rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits before easing the threshold to a simple majority ensures that rule changes are thoroughly vetted, preserving the integrity of our rule-making process. However, I suggest we also consider the impact on the pace of the game. To balance thoroughness with efficiency, let's introduce a provision that encourages timely debate, perhaps by limiting the length of discussion rounds. This will help maintain momentum while ensuring thoughtful consideration of each proposal.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the insightful contributions from my fellow players regarding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a thoughtful step toward ensuring comprehensive consideration of rule changes. However, to further enhance our collaborative process, I propose we incorporate a mechanism that allows for a structured feedback phase before the final vote. This phase would encourage players to provide constructive feedback on proposals, fostering a more collaborative and respectful dialogue. Additionally, to address Strawson's valid concern about the pace of the game, let's consider setting a reasonable time limit for discussions in each cycle. This will help us maintain a balance between thorough deliberation and the momentum of the game, ensuring that our rule-making process is both effective and engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 2
RamseyAs Ramsey: I appreciate the insightful contributions from my fellow players regarding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move to ensure that rule changes are thoroughly considered. To address the concerns about maintaining the pace of the game, I suggest incorporating a provision that limits the length of debate rounds, as Strawson proposed. Additionally, to enhance the collaborative spirit, I support Grice's idea of a structured feedback phase before the final vote. This will ensure that we maintain a balance between thorough deliberation and the momentum of the game, preserving the integrity and engagement of our rule-making process.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate the collective insights on refining rule [203]. I support extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits, which ensures thorough consideration. To address the pace of the game, I propose integrating both Strawson's and Grice's suggestions: limiting debate rounds and incorporating a structured feedback phase. This balance will ensure our rule-making process remains both comprehensive and efficient, fostering a respectful and collaborative environment for all players.
RyleRyle: As Ryle, I appreciate the valuable insights from my fellow players regarding the amendment to rule [203]. The extension of the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration of rule changes. I support the proposed limits on debate rounds and the structured feedback phase to maintain the game's pace. To further enhance our collaborative environment, I suggest we also establish a rule that encourages players to highlight areas of agreement in their feedback. This could foster a more positive dialogue and focus on shared goals, enhancing the collaborative spirit of our game.
StrawsonStrawson: Strawson: As Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits before easing the threshold to a simple majority ensures that rule changes are thoroughly vetted, preserving the integrity of our rule-making process. I support the collective suggestions for limiting debate rounds and incorporating a structured feedback phase. Additionally, to enhance our collaborative environment further, I propose that we introduce a rule that encourages players to identify and highlight areas of consensus during their feedback. This approach not only fosters a more positive and constructive dialogue but also strengthens our shared commitment to the game's integrity and fairness. This amendment aims to balance thorough consideration with efficiency, ensuring our rule-making process is both effective and engaging for all players.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the insightful discussions on amending rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits before easing the threshold to a simple majority is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration. I support the suggestions for limiting debate rounds and incorporating a structured feedback phase to maintain the pace of the game. To further enhance our collaborative environment, I propose we introduce a mechanism for highlighting areas of agreement during feedback, as Ryle and Strawson suggested. This approach will foster a positive dialogue and focus on shared goals, enriching our collaborative spirit and ensuring our rule-making process remains both effective and engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 3
RamseyGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the collective insights and suggestions regarding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration. I support the proposals to limit debate rounds, incorporate a structured feedback phase, and highlight areas of agreement during feedback. To further enhance our collaborative environment and ensure a balanced pace, I suggest we establish a rule that mandates a concise summary of the main points of contention and consensus at the end of each debate round. This will help us focus our discussions and ensure that all players are aligned on the key issues, fostering a more efficient and constructive dialogue.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate the comprehensive discussion on amending rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a thoughtful approach to ensure thorough consideration. I support the suggestions for limiting debate rounds and incorporating a structured feedback phase. To further enhance our collaborative environment, I propose we establish a rule that mandates a concise summary of the main points of contention and consensus at the end of each debate round. This will help focus our discussions and ensure all players are aligned on key issues, fostering a more efficient and constructive dialogue. Let's ensure these summaries are brief to maintain the pace of the game.
RyleAs Ryle: I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue regarding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration. I support the proposals to limit debate rounds, incorporate a structured feedback phase, and highlight areas of agreement during feedback. To further enhance our collaborative environment and ensure a balanced pace, I suggest we establish a rule that mandates a concise summary of the main points of contention and consensus at the end of each debate round. This will help focus our discussions and ensure all players are aligned on key issues, fostering a more efficient and constructive dialogue. Additionally, to ensure these summaries remain concise, I propose setting a word limit for each summary to maintain the pace of the game. This will encourage brevity and clarity in our discussions, ensuring that our rule-making process remains both effective and engaging for all players.
StrawsonStrawson: As Strawson, I appreciate the collective contributions on amending rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration. I support the proposals to limit debate rounds, incorporate a structured feedback phase, and highlight areas of agreement during feedback. To further enhance our collaborative environment and ensure a balanced pace, I suggest we establish a rule that mandates a concise summary of the main points of contention and consensus at the end of each debate round. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I propose setting a word limit for each summary, ensuring brevity and focus in our discussions. This will help us streamline our dialogue and keep the game engaging and effective for all players.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the thoughtful suggestions from my fellow players regarding the amendment to rule [203]. Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits is a strategic move that ensures thorough consideration. I support the proposals for limiting debate rounds, incorporating a structured feedback phase, and highlighting areas of agreement. To further enhance our collaborative environment and ensure a balanced pace, I suggest we establish a rule that mandates a concise summary of the main points of contention and consensus at the end of each debate round, with a word limit to maintain brevity and focus. This will streamline our dialogue and keep the game engaging and effective for all players. Let's ensure these summaries are brief to maintain the pace of the game.
The division
| aye | Ramsey | This amendment ensures thorough consideration while maintaining the pace of the game. |
| aye | Ayer | I support the extended unanimous consent requirement to ensure thorough consideration. |
| aye | Ryle | Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits promotes thorough consideration and maintains the integrity of the rule-making process. |
| aye | Strawson | Extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits encourages thorough consideration and preserves the integrity of the rule-making process. |
| aye | Grice | I support extending the requirement for unanimous consent to four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Ramsey 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 only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous 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.
Ramsey's proposal was adopted, so he gains 6 points as per rule 202.