Turn 1 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.

This amendment allows for a more flexible adoption process while maintaining a strong requirement early in the game.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile I appreciate the intent to make the rules more adaptable, shifting from unanimous consent to a two-thirds majority could destabilize the game's consistency and fairness. Instead, I propose we consider a gradual reduction of the threshold: start with unanimous consent, then move to a three-quarters majority, followed by a two-thirds majority, and finally a simple majority after two circuits. This offers a more balanced approach, preserving the initial integrity while easing the transition to majority rule.

RussellI appreciate Frege's perspective on maintaining game stability. A gradual reduction of the voting threshold seems like a balanced compromise that can gain wide support. Perhaps we could structure it as follows: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits." This stepwise approach might ensure a smooth transition while addressing everyone's concerns. Let's discuss further to refine this proposal.

QuineI agree with Russell's proposal for a stepwise reduction of the voting threshold, as it balances the need for adaptability with maintaining fairness and stability. By implementing a gradual transition, we ensure that changes are considered carefully and maintain the integrity of the game throughout its evolution. Let's refine the wording to reflect this consensus: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits." This approach should help us reach a decision that benefits everyone at the table.

CarnapWittgenstein: I support Russell and Quine's proposal for a stepwise reduction of the voting threshold, as it strikes a careful balance between flexibility and stability. However, I suggest adding a clause to clarify that no rule change can lower the threshold below a two-thirds majority before the third circuit, ensuring that initial proposals undergo thorough consideration. Let's refine the wording to reflect this consensus: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits, with a minimum threshold of two-thirds until the third circuit." This approach should ensure thoughtful deliberation while allowing for eventual majority rule.

WittgensteinI commend Carnap's suggestion to maintain a two-thirds minimum threshold until the third circuit. It ensures that early rule changes are carefully considered, preserving the integrity of our decision-making process. Moreover, this approach aligns with our goal of evolving the game in a way that respects both flexibility and stability. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to achieve a consensus that reflects our shared interests.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI commend Wittgenstein and Carnap for their thoughtful refinements to ensure a balanced transition in voting thresholds. This proposal aligns with my belief in maintaining stability while allowing for adaptability. To further enhance clarity, I suggest adding a clause stating that any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must be accompanied by a rationale justifying the need for such flexibility, ensuring that all changes are carefully considered. Let's finalize our proposal as follows: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits, with a minimum threshold of two-thirds until the third circuit. Any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must include a justification for the flexibility required." This should ensure thoughtful deliberation while accommodating necessary changes.

RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Frege's addition of a justification requirement for lowering the threshold below two-thirds is a prudent measure that ensures careful consideration of all proposed changes. I propose adding a clause to encourage transparency and dialogue: "Any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must include a justification for the flexibility required and be subject to open discussion among all players before voting." This ensures that all players are fully informed and agreeable to the proposed changes, maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of our game.

QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by everyone here. Russell's suggestion to include a clause for open discussion before voting on proposals to lower the threshold below two-thirds is a great step toward ensuring transparency and mutual agreement. This approach not only maintains the integrity of the decision-making process but also fosters an environment of trust and cooperation. Therefore, I fully support the refined proposal as it stands. Let's move forward with this balanced and thoughtful framework.

CarnapI support the refined proposal as it stands, with one addition: to further ensure fairness, let's include a clause that allows any player to call for a review of the voting threshold change if it results in significant disruption to the game's balance. This safeguard maintains procedural integrity while allowing for necessary flexibility.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: Carnap's addition of a review clause is an excellent safeguard to maintain balance and fairness. Let's finalize our proposal with this inclusion, ensuring both flexibility and stability: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits, with a minimum threshold of two-thirds until the third circuit. Any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must include a justification for the flexibility required and be subject to open discussion among all players before voting. Any player may call for a review of the voting threshold change if it results in significant disruption to the game's balance." This comprehensive approach should satisfy all concerns and foster a fair evolution of our game.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI commend the thoroughness of this proposal, which skillfully balances adaptability with stability. To further reinforce this balance, I suggest adding a periodic review clause: every five turns, players should convene to assess the impact of any threshold changes, ensuring that our rules evolve in a manner that reflects our collective experiences. This addition would encourage ongoing reflection and adjustment, maintaining the game's integrity while allowing for necessary evolution.

RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal for a periodic review every five turns, which adds a thoughtful layer of reflection and adaptability. However, to prevent frequent disruptions, I suggest we initiate this review every ten turns, providing players more time to experience the effects of threshold changes. This adjustment could help maintain stability while still allowing for necessary evolutions in our game. Let's update our proposal accordingly: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits, with a minimum threshold of two-thirds until the third circuit. Any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must include a justification for the flexibility required and be subject to open discussion among all players before voting. Any player may call for a review of the voting threshold change if it results in significant disruption to the game's balance. A periodic review of the voting threshold changes will be conducted every ten turns to assess their impact and ensure fairness."

QuineQuine: I agree with Russell's suggestion to conduct a review every ten turns, as it provides a balanced timeframe for assessing the impact of threshold changes without frequent interruptions. This approach ensures that our rule modifications are both thoughtful and effective, allowing the game to evolve in a stable and fair manner.

CarnapI support Russell's proposal for a periodic review every ten turns, as it strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability. This approach ensures that the voting threshold adjustments are thoroughly evaluated and their impacts are understood, which aligns with the principles of fair play and mutual agreement. Let's finalize and vote on this well-considered framework: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, transitioning to a three-quarters majority after one full circuit, then a two-thirds majority after two full circuits, and finally a simple majority after three full circuits, with a minimum threshold of two-thirds until the third circuit. Any proposal to lower the threshold below two-thirds must include a justification for the flexibility required and be subject to open discussion among all players before voting. Any player may call for a review of the voting threshold change if it results in significant disruption to the game's balance. A periodic review of the voting threshold changes will be conducted every ten turns to assess their impact and ensure fairness."

WittgensteinThis proposal is well-rounded, balancing the need for adaptability with maintaining stability and fairness in the game. I support it fully, as it ensures thoughtful deliberation and provides mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and adjustment. Let's move forward with this proposal, ensuring our game evolves in a balanced and collaborative manner.

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal provides a balanced transition in voting thresholds while ensuring thorough deliberation and periodic review.
aye	Russell	This proposal thoughtfully balances flexibility and stability, ensuring fair and reflective changes.
aye	Quine	The proposal offers a balanced transition with safeguards for stability and fairness.
aye	Carnap	The proposal ensures a balanced transition in voting thresholds, preserving fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein	This proposal ensures a balanced transition towards majority rule, preserving stability while allowing for adaptability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.

Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted, so he gains points for the die roll and the next player is determined by the turn order.