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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Adjusting the voting threshold earlier promotes strategic flexibility and maintains engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Quine's proposal to adjust the threshold for rule change adoption from two full circuits to three. This change would indeed make the current unanimous consent requirement more durable, aligning with my preference for stable institutions. However, it could also potentially slow the pace of rule evolution in the game, which may not be desirable for everyone. As a compromise, I suggest that instead of increasing the circuits to three, we consider a proposal that allows for a gradual reduction in the threshold—perhaps starting with unanimous consent, then moving to three-quarters majority after one circuit, and finally to a simple majority after two circuits. This way, we maintain some degree of stability while still allowing for adaptability as the game progresses. I would be willing to support Quine's proposal if we can come to a consensus on a more gradual approach to changing the voting threshold.
RussellRussell: I see the merit in Quine's proposal to extend the requirement for unanimous consent to three circuits, which aligns with Frege's appreciation for stability. However, I'm also inclined towards Frege's suggestion of a more gradual approach. A phased reduction in the threshold seems like a balanced compromise that would ensure stability while still allowing for necessary adaptability as the game progresses. To build consensus, I propose a slight modification: let's move from unanimous consent to a three-quarters majority after one circuit, to a two-thirds majority after two circuits, and finally to a simple majority after three circuits. This approach maintains a robust system of checks and balances while progressively easing the voting requirements. I believe this compromise could garner broader support and am open to discussing further refinements with you both.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's perspectives on finding a balance between stability and adaptability. Frege's idea of a gradual threshold reduction and Russell's phased proposal are insightful. However, I would like to suggest a middle ground: maintaining unanimous consent for the first circuit, then shifting to a three-quarters majority after the second circuit, and finally to a simple majority after the third circuit. This approach respects the initial need for consensus while progressively allowing more flexibility as the game develops. I believe this compromise could effectively balance stability with the potential for rule evolution.
CarnapCarnap: I agree with the spirit of the proposals to balance stability and adaptability. Russell's phased approach offers a thoughtful compromise, and I'm inclined to support it. Let's ensure clarity by explicitly defining the voting thresholds at each circuit to avoid any ambiguity. I propose we finalize the amendment as: unanimous consent for the first circuit, three-quarters majority for the second, two-thirds for the third, and simple majority thereafter. This ensures a gradual transition that respects procedural fairness and prevents abrupt changes.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: The gradual reduction in voting thresholds proposed by Carnap offers a thoughtful balance, ensuring both stability and adaptability. By defining clear thresholds for each circuit, we maintain procedural fairness while allowing for necessary evolution. I support this amendment, as it aligns with my belief in the game's improvement through progressive change. Let's move forward with this proposal, ensuring it reflects our collective commitment to a fair and dynamic game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI commend the thoughtful discussion and the collaborative spirit we've demonstrated in refining this proposal. Carnap's version, with its clear, phased thresholds, provides a well-structured framework that aligns with my preference for durable institutions while allowing the game to adapt progressively. I fully support this amendment and believe it will strengthen the game's integrity and fairness. Let's move forward with this proposal.
RussellI'm pleased to see the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. Carnap's phased approach with clearly defined thresholds offers a balanced solution that respects both stability and adaptability. As we move towards a consensus, I suggest we emphasize in the final wording that each threshold transition is intended to ensure procedural fairness and prevent abrupt changes. I fully support this proposal as it stands and look forward to seeing it adopted.
QuineI'm pleased to see the consensus forming around this thoughtful proposal. Carnap's phased approach with specific thresholds ensures procedural fairness and prevents abrupt changes, which aligns with my belief in balancing stability and adaptability. This amendment will help maintain the integrity of the game while allowing for necessary evolution. I fully support this proposal and am excited to see it adopted.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort and the careful consideration that has gone into refining this proposal. Carnap's approach with phased voting thresholds ensures procedural fairness and aligns well with my preference for stable yet adaptable rules. I fully support the amendment as it stands and believe it will enhance the game's integrity. Let's move forward with this proposal.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I'm pleased with the clarity and fairness this proposal brings to our voting process. It ensures a thoughtful evolution of our rules, reflecting our commitment to a fair and dynamic game. I support this amendment as it stands.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI am pleased with the consensus reached around Carnap's proposal, which strikes a balance between stability and adaptability. The phased approach with clear thresholds for each circuit ensures procedural fairness and allows the game to evolve thoughtfully. I fully support this amendment, believing it will enhance the game's integrity. Let's move forward with this proposal.
RussellI am delighted to see the consensus forming around Carnap's proposal. His approach of phased voting thresholds aligns well with my belief in balancing stability with necessary adaptability. I fully support this amendment as it stands, recognizing its potential to maintain procedural fairness while allowing the game to evolve. Let's proceed with adopting this proposal.
QuineI'm glad to see we've reached a consensus on this proposal. Carnap's structured approach with phased voting thresholds ensures both stability and adaptability, aligning well with our collective goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game. I fully support adopting this amendment.
CarnapI am glad to see that we have reached a consensus on Carnap's proposal. This phased approach with clearly defined voting thresholds is a balanced and fair method to ensure the game evolves appropriately while maintaining procedural integrity. I fully support adopting this amendment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive discussion and consensus we've achieved. This phased approach with clear thresholds ensures procedural fairness and supports the game's evolution. I fully support adopting this amendment as it stands.
The division
| aye | Frege | This phased approach ensures stability while allowing adaptability. |
| aye | Russell | This phased approach balances stability and adaptability effectively. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal offers a balanced approach to rule evolution. |
| aye | Carnap | This amendment balances stability with adaptability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This phased approach balances stability with adaptability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
The proposal was adopted, but no rule awards or deducts points for this specific change, nor does it create or move a ledger or perform surgery on another rule.