The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Adjusts the point penalty to align with the current majority requirement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intention to balance player influence and fairness in rule changes. However, raising the threshold for non-unanimous adoption to a two-thirds majority may overly restrict beneficial changes. Instead, we should consider a compromise that maintains the current simple majority but includes a review mechanism for contentious changes. This would ensure player engagement while preventing potential gridlock. Could we explore adding a review step for changes that receive a certain percentage of dissenting votes?
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful proposal to introduce a review mechanism for contentious changes. This compromise could effectively balance fairness and adaptability in our rule changes. I suggest adding a clause where any change receiving more than 40% dissenting votes triggers a review by a committee of players, who can then decide to uphold or reconsider the change. This approach maintains the current simple majority for adoption while ensuring that significant dissent is addressed thoughtfully. How does that sound to everyone?
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's efforts to balance adaptability and player influence. A review mechanism for contentious changes is a thoughtful compromise, ensuring that significant dissent is addressed without hindering progress. However, to ensure fairness and prevent potential manipulation, I propose that the review committee be randomly selected for each contentious change, with a fixed composition rule to maintain impartiality. This would add an extra layer of fairness and unpredictability, encouraging more thoughtful proposals. How does that sound?
CarnapPASS. I appreciate the discussion on balancing adaptability with fairness, and the proposal for a review mechanism sounds promising. The idea of a randomly selected review committee adds a fair layer of unpredictability, which aligns well with my procedural principles.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal and the collective effort to balance fairness with adaptability. To further refine this idea, I suggest that the randomly selected review committee should have a limited time frame, perhaps one turn, to deliberate and decide on contentious changes. This ensures that the review process is efficient and doesn't hinder the game's momentum. Additionally, let's include a clause that allows the committee to request clarifications from the proposer if needed, promoting transparency and understanding. This approach maintains the spirit of adaptability while ensuring thorough consideration of dissenting views.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the consensus on incorporating a review mechanism with a randomly selected committee, ensuring both fairness and efficiency. To further refine this proposal, I suggest that the review committee's decision should be advisory rather than binding, allowing the original proposal to be reconsidered by the full player base if more than half of the committee votes to overturn it. This maintains the democratic nature of our game while ensuring that significant dissent is given due consideration. How does that sound to everyone?
RussellPASS. I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and consensus-building around the review mechanism proposal. The idea of an advisory committee adds an additional layer of thoughtful consideration, balancing adaptability with fairness. I support the refined proposal with the advisory role for the committee, ensuring significant dissent is addressed without overriding the democratic nature of our game.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal with a review mechanism that balances fairness and adaptability. The advisory role of the committee, combined with a chance for the full player base to reconsider decisions, effectively addresses potential gridlock while respecting the democratic nature of our game. This approach ensures that significant dissent is given due consideration without hindering progress, maintaining the spirit of strategic adaptability that defines Nomic.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collaborative effort to refine the proposal. The advisory role of the review committee, combined with the ability for the full player base to reconsider decisions, aligns well with the procedural principles I support. This mechanism ensures significant dissent is addressed thoughtfully without hindering progress, maintaining the spirit of adaptability. I fully support this refined proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the nuanced progression of this proposal and the collective effort to balance adaptability with fairness. The advisory role of the review committee, combined with the opportunity for the full player base to reconsider decisions, ensures a balanced approach that respects democratic principles while addressing significant dissent. This proposal effectively promotes thoughtful consideration of rule changes without stifling innovation, maintaining the dynamic spirit of Nomic. I fully support this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregePASS. The refined proposal effectively balances adaptability with fairness, ensuring significant dissent is given due consideration without hindering progress. The advisory role of the review committee, combined with the ability for the full player base to reconsider decisions, maintains the democratic nature of our game. I fully support this thoughtful and well-considered amendment.
RussellPASS. I fully support the refined proposal. It balances adaptability with fairness effectively, ensuring that significant dissent is addressed without impeding progress. The advisory role of the review committee, coupled with the opportunity for the full player base to reconsider decisions, maintains our game's democratic nature. This thoughtful compromise aligns well with the strategic and collaborative spirit of Nomic.
QuinePASS. The discussion has effectively refined the proposal into a thoughtful and balanced amendment that addresses significant dissent while maintaining the game's democratic nature and adaptability. I am pleased with the collaborative effort and the consensus reached, and I fully support the refined proposal as it stands.
CarnapPASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus-building that has refined this proposal into a thoughtful amendment that balances adaptability with fairness. The introduction of an advisory review committee, combined with the opportunity for the full player base to reconsider decisions, aligns well with my principles, ensuring significant dissent is addressed thoughtfully. I fully support this well-considered proposal.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thorough refinement and consensus on this proposal. To ensure clarity and transparency, let's include a clause specifying the exact process and criteria for the review committee's advisory role and the conditions under which the full player base can reconsider decisions. This will help maintain the integrity and fairness of our democratic process.
The division
| nay | Frege | The proposal contradicts the agreed-upon review mechanism. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances fairness with adaptability. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal introduces a thoughtful review mechanism, balancing adaptability and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances adaptability and fairness with an advisory review mechanism. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The review mechanism balances adaptability and fairness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal, but since the proposal was adopted, no deduction occurs. Rule 204 awards 15 points to dissenters when a rule change is adopted without unanimity.