The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.This proposal eases the transition to a more dynamic rule change process, ensuring adaptability after initial stabilization.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI commend Russell's proposal for introducing a simple majority threshold after three full turns rather than two. This amendment would promote stability by ensuring a more extensive period of consensus-building before easing the voting requirements. However, to avoid premature shifts and maintain a balanced approach, I suggest modifying the proposal to trigger the threshold change after each player completes four full turns. This would ensure thorough deliberation and adaptability within a more durable institutional framework.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for further stability by extending the threshold shift to four full turns. However, considering our current voting dynamics and the need for more flexible progress, I propose a compromise: let's shift the threshold after three full turns, as originally suggested, but include a review mechanism every six turns to ensure ongoing consensus and adaptability. This way, we maintain a balance between stability and necessary change, fostering collaboration.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's emphasis on balance and adaptability. Frege's proposal for four full turns ensures thorough deliberation, but Russell's compromise of a review mechanism every six turns adds a layer of continuous assessment. I suggest we adopt Russell's compromise with a slight modification: let's shift the threshold after three full turns and include a review mechanism every five turns. This provides a reasonable period for initial consensus-building, with more frequent checks to maintain fairness and adaptability.
CarnapI appreciate both Frege's and Quine's suggestions for ensuring thorough deliberation and adaptability. While Russell's compromise of a review mechanism every six turns is a step towards balance, I propose aligning with Quine's suggestion to conduct reviews every five turns. This interval provides a robust period for consensus-building while allowing for more frequent assessments to ensure the ruleset remains fair and adaptable. Additionally, to further promote stability and consensus, I suggest maintaining the threshold shift after three full turns as originally proposed by Russell. This approach balances our need for adaptability with the procedural stability that I advocate.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Quine's modification to include a review mechanism every five turns aligns well with our shared goal of maintaining adaptability and fairness. I propose we integrate this with a phased approach: initially adopt the threshold shift after three full turns, as Russell suggests, and conduct reviews every five turns to assess the impact and ensure continuous alignment with our collective objectives. This phased approach allows us to balance stability with necessary evolution, fostering a dynamic yet fair environment for all players.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, and I concur with Quine's and Wittgenstein's perspectives on the balance between stability and adaptability. The proposal to adopt the threshold shift after three full turns, complemented by reviews every five turns, aligns well with my preference for durable institutions. This approach ensures ample opportunity for consensus while allowing for periodic reassessment to maintain fairness and adaptability. I support this proposal as it stands.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by everyone. The proposal to adopt the threshold shift after three full turns, paired with reviews every five turns, strikes a commendable balance between stability and adaptability. This approach aligns well with my preference for maintaining procedural fairness and promoting ongoing consensus. I support this proposal as it stands.
QuineI support the current proposal as it stands, with the threshold shift after three full turns and reviews every five turns. This structure ensures a balance between initial consensus-building and regular reassessment, promoting both stability and adaptability. The phased approach allows us to adapt to changing dynamics while maintaining fairness, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic yet equitable game environment.
CarnapI acknowledge the productive discussion that has unfolded. The proposal, with a threshold shift after three full turns and reviews every five turns, adeptly balances the need for procedural stability with the flexibility to adapt as the game evolves. I support this proposal, as it upholds the principles of fairness and adaptability I advocate for, while ensuring a robust framework for consensus-building. PASS
Discussion · round 3
RussellI am pleased to see that we've reached a consensus on the proposal, as it effectively balances both stability and adaptability, ensuring fairness for all players. The phased approach with a threshold shift after three full turns and reviews every five turns allows us to maintain a dynamic yet structured environment. PASS
QuineI concur with the current proposal for a threshold shift after three full turns and reviews every five turns. This approach provides a balanced framework that supports both initial stability and ongoing adaptability, which is essential for maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. PASS
CarnapI agree with the current proposal as it stands. The threshold shift after three full turns, combined with reviews every five turns, creates a balanced framework that fosters both stability and adaptability, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the consensus reached on the proposal. This balanced approach, with a threshold shift after three full turns and reviews every five turns, aligns with my belief in evolving mechanisms that foster fairness and adaptability. PASS
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal balances adaptability and stability, promoting fair progression. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances adaptability with consensus. |
| aye | Quine | Balances stability with adaptability, fostering fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances adaptability with stability, promoting procedural fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal balances stability with adaptability, fostering a fair environment. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.
Russell's proposal was adopted, so he gains 6 points as per rule 202.