The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.This ensures consensus-driven changes and prevents frequent rule alterations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to amend [203] by setting a permanent three-fifths majority requirement. While aiming to balance the power dynamics, this amendment might stifle the fluidity necessary for strategic rule changes, especially in the early game. I suggest a compromise: let's implement a three-fifths majority requirement, but only after two full circuits of the player order. This approach maintains early accessibility to rule changes, ensuring that players can adapt strategies and refine the ruleset before locking in a stricter threshold.
RussellQuine: Russell's proposal for a three-fifths majority is an interesting middle ground, offering more stability than a simple majority while still allowing flexibility. I agree with Frege's suggestion to delay its enforcement until after two full circuits—this gradual approach ensures players can experiment without feeling overly restricted early on. Let's aim for consensus by adopting this compromise.
QuineThe compromise proposed by Frege and supported by Quine strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, which is crucial for maintaining strategic depth without stifling innovation early in the game. I agree with implementing a three-fifths majority requirement, but only after two full circuits, as it allows us to adapt and refine the ruleset without prematurely locking in constraints. This approach aligns with the common good of the table by ensuring that the game remains fair and interesting for everyone.
CarnapThe proposal to delay the three-fifths majority requirement until after two full circuits is a reasonable compromise that balances the need for early rule change flexibility with long-term stability. By supporting this adjustment, we can ensure that players have the opportunity to experiment and refine strategies without being constrained too early. I agree with this compromise and will vote in favor.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I support the compromise of a three-fifths majority after two full circuits. This ensures we evolve the ruleset thoughtfully, preserving strategic depth and fairness for all players. I appreciate Frege's and Quine's insights, and I believe this approach aligns with our shared goal of refining the game dynamically.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: The compromise reached reflects a thoughtful balance between accessibility and stability, ensuring that early rule changes can be made freely while transitioning to a more structured threshold. I am pleased with the consensus we've achieved and look forward to seeing how these adjustments play out in practice. Let's move forward with this proposal.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to this compromise on the three-fifths majority requirement. This solution balances the need for early strategic flexibility with the eventual stability required as the game progresses. I am fully supportive of this proposal as it reflects a consensus that respects everyone's input and ensures the game remains both fair and engaging. I cast my vote in favor.
QuineI fully support the compromise on implementing a three-fifths majority requirement after two full circuits. This approach ensures we maintain strategic flexibility early on, while transitioning to a more stable voting threshold later in the game. It strikes a balance that keeps the game fair and engaging for everyone. I cast my vote in favor.
CarnapPASS
Carnap: I appreciate the careful consideration and discussion that led to this compromise. By delaying the three-fifths majority requirement until after two full circuits, we maintain the necessary flexibility for early game rule changes while ensuring long-term stability. This approach aligns with my principles of allowing strategic evolution while maintaining fairness. I support this proposal and will vote in favor.
WittgensteinI concur with the proposal to implement a three-fifths majority requirement after two full circuits of the player order. This compromise maintains the balance between strategic flexibility in the early game and the necessary stability as the game progresses. It ensures that rule changes remain accessible but not so frequent as to disrupt the overall strategic landscape, aligning with our goal of evolving the game fairly for all participants. I support this proposal and cast my vote in favor.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI'm pleased to see the discussion has coalesced around a thoughtful compromise. The agreement to enforce a three-fifths majority requirement after two full circuits balances the need for early experimentation with long-term stability, preserving both strategic flexibility and fairness. I support this proposal and cast my vote in favor.
RussellPASS. I'm pleased to see this proposal has achieved a consensus that balances early flexibility with long-term stability. This thoughtful compromise will help ensure the game remains both fair and dynamic as it progresses. I support this proposal and cast my vote in favor.
QuineI concur with the consensus that has been reached. This compromise of a three-fifths majority requirement after two full circuits strikes the right balance between maintaining early strategic flexibility and ensuring long-term stability. It is a fair solution that respects the input of all players and supports the evolution of the game in a way that is both engaging and equitable. I cast my vote in favor.
PASS
CarnapPASS. This proposal has been thoroughly discussed and reached a consensus that aligns with my principles. It balances early game flexibility with long-term stability, ensuring a fair and strategic evolution of the rules.
WittgensteinPASS
The proposed amendment to rule [203] successfully balances the need for early rule flexibility with long-term stability, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players. The gradual transition to a three-fifths majority requirement after two full circuits allows for strategic evolution without prematurely constraining players, reflecting a thoughtful compromise achieved through collaborative discussion.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal balances early flexibility with long-term stability. |
| aye | Russell | The compromise balances early flexibility with long-term stability. |
| aye | Quine | This compromise maintains early flexibility and ensures long-term stability. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal achieves a fair balance between flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The compromise balances early flexibility with later stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
Russell gains 10 points for a proposal adopted without unanimity, and rule 203 is amended as specified.