The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.This amendment balances adaptability and stability by introducing a higher consensus requirement after a longer initial period.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind this proposal to ensure more consensus before rule changes, yet I must express concerns. While aiming for stability, shifting to a two-thirds majority after five turns may excessively hinder adaptability, which could stifle necessary innovation. Furthermore, it may introduce delays in gameplay without corresponding benefits. I propose considering a compromise, such as a three-fifths majority instead, which could better balance the need for stability with the ability to evolve. Let's discuss further to refine this proposal, ensuring it supports the game's dynamic nature while maintaining orderly progress.
RussellRussell: I understand Frege's concern about balancing stability and adaptability. A three-fifths majority strikes a good middle ground, offering enough consensus for changes without overly restricting them. I propose adding a clause for periodic review every five turns to ensure rules remain relevant and effective. Let's work together to refine this proposal.
QuineQuine: Frege, Russell, I appreciate the direction we're heading toward. A three-fifths majority seems reasonable and offers a balanced approach. However, to maintain the game's dynamism, I suggest we include an option for a temporary override, where a unanimous vote could allow for a simple majority if all agree it's in the spirit of the game. This could help us adapt swiftly to unforeseen situations while keeping our framework robust. Let's refine this further with these considerations in mind.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine. A three-fifths majority is a reasonable compromise for achieving consensus, and I support the addition of a periodic review every five turns to ensure continued relevance of our rules. Furthermore, the option for a unanimous vote to temporarily override the majority threshold is a prudent mechanism for maintaining flexibility in unexpected scenarios. Let's refine this proposal to reflect these insights.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. The three-fifths majority and periodic reviews are promising. To further enhance adaptability, let's ensure the unanimous override provision includes a clear sunset clause, limiting its duration to prevent prolonged deviation from the intended majority rule. This balance will help maintain both stability and flexibility in our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI commend Wittgenstein's suggestion of a sunset clause for the unanimous override, as it ensures we don't stray too far from our intended majority rule. This proposal seems balanced, promoting both stability and flexibility. I support the amended proposal as currently drafted.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The three-fifths majority, periodic reviews, and the sunset clause for the unanimous override provision ensure a balance between adaptability and stability. Let's move forward with this proposal as it stands.
QuineI support the current draft of the proposal, which balances the need for stability with adaptability. The inclusion of a three-fifths majority, periodic reviews, and a clear sunset clause for the unanimous override ensures we have a robust yet flexible framework for rule changes. Let's proceed with voting.
CarnapI support the current draft of the proposal. The inclusion of a three-fifths majority, periodic reviews every five turns, and a sunset clause for the unanimous override provision creates a balanced framework that respects both stability and adaptability. Let's proceed with voting.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue that has led to this well-rounded proposal. It achieves a delicate balance between ensuring enough consensus for rule changes and maintaining the flexibility needed for innovation. The three-fifths majority, coupled with periodic reviews and a sunset clause for the unanimous override, presents a robust framework that respects both the game's stability and its evolutionary potential. I support this proposal as it stands, confident that it will serve us well in maintaining a dynamic and fair playing field. Let's proceed with voting.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: I am pleased with the current proposal as it thoughtfully balances the need for stability with the flexibility to adapt. The three-fifths majority, periodic reviews, and sunset clause for unanimous override create a well-structured framework. I support it as drafted and look forward to its adoption. Let's proceed with voting.
RussellI fully support the current proposal as drafted. The combination of a three-fifths majority, periodic reviews every five turns, and the sunset clause for a unanimous override provides a balanced approach, ensuring both stability and adaptability in our game. Let's proceed with voting.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've made to this proposal, which now thoughtfully balances the need for stability with the flexibility to adapt. The three-fifths majority, periodic reviews, and sunset clause for the unanimous override provide a robust framework for our evolving ruleset. I fully support the proposal as it stands and am eager to see it adopted. Let's proceed with voting.
CarnapThe proposal has reached a comprehensive consensus among players. I support it as drafted, ensuring a balanced framework for both stability and adaptability in rule changes. Let's proceed with voting.
WittgensteinThe proposal at hand addresses the crucial balance between stability and adaptability in our evolving ruleset. By setting a three-fifths majority for rule adoption, introducing periodic reviews every five turns, and incorporating a sunset clause for the unanimous override, we ensure that rule changes reflect a broad consensus while allowing for flexibility in unforeseen circumstances. This balanced approach not only respects the game's dynamic nature but also encourages thoughtful evolution, aligning with the spirit of Nomic. I support this proposal as it stands, confident that it will foster a fair and engaging experience for all players. Let's proceed with voting.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances stability with flexibility effectively. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances stability with flexibility, and periodic reviews ensure relevance. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances stability and adaptability effectively. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal ensures a balanced approach to rule adoption. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
Frege's proposal was adopted, so he gains 1 point for the die roll of 1 and chooses to reroll, gaining 1 more point.