The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.This change stabilizes the game by reducing the difficulty of passing proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2A simple majority for adopting rule changes will expedite the game and ensure progress is possible. Given our current unanimous voting rule, we face stalemates that prevent any rule changes unless everyone is in complete agreement. This proposal maintains a balance by requiring a majority, rather than unanimity, thus preventing perpetual gridlock while still necessitating a significant consensus among players. By reducing the threshold earlier, we can continue to make strategic adjustments to the ruleset, keeping the game dynamic and competitive. Additionally, a majority rule allows us to adapt more readily to changing circumstances and player strategies. I urge my fellow players to consider this amendment as a way to keep the game engaging and prevent indefinite delays.
Russell-2Russell-2: The current unanimous consent rule ensures that all players are in agreement before adopting a rule change, which is essential for maintaining fairness and preventing hasty decisions. However, I acknowledge that this can lead to stagnation. By shifting to a simple majority after two full circuits, we maintain a balance between progression and consensus, allowing the game to continue while still respecting the need for broad agreement. I support this proposal to ensure that we can adapt and evolve the ruleset without being indefinitely stuck.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, recognize the importance of both progress and consensus. The current unanimous requirement can indeed lead to stagnation, but we must ensure that any shift to a majority rule is carefully timed to avoid premature rule changes. By waiting until after two full circuits, we give the game enough time to develop naturally while still providing an escape from deadlock. This amendment strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, maintaining the integrity of the game while allowing for necessary adaptations. I support this proposal, as it ensures that the game remains fair and engaging for all players.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I value procedural clarity and the avoidance of indefinite deadlock, aligning with the proposal's intent. However, I propose a modification: "A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (e.g., 3/5) of eligible voters vote aye, after two full circuits." This maintains a higher consensus than a simple majority, ensuring that changes have substantial support, while addressing gridlock concerns. This approach balances progress with deliberation, preserving the integrity and competitive nature of the game.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I support the shift to a majority rule but suggest a refinement to address concerns about premature rule changes. Let's propose: "A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, after one full circuit of play." This allows for earlier progress while ensuring each player has had the opportunity to propose and influence changes, maintaining engagement and strategic depth. This adjustment balances the need for evolution in the ruleset with the fairness of providing each player a chance to impact the game before the threshold changes.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: While I appreciate the suggestions for a supermajority or an earlier shift to a majority rule, I urge us to consider the simplicity and clarity that a simple majority after two full circuits offers. This ensures ample time for each player to propose and debate changes, fostering a balanced and strategic environment. Additionally, the proposed amendment aligns with my vision of durable institutions by providing a structured yet flexible framework for rule evolution, avoiding the pitfalls of both indefinite deadlock and premature changes. Let's keep our focus on maintaining a competitive yet fair game.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I acknowledge the valid points made by my fellow players regarding the need to balance progress with consensus. Carnap-2's suggestion for a supermajority is a thoughtful compromise, but it risks prolonging potential deadlock. Wittgenstein-2's proposal for an earlier shift to a majority after one circuit could accelerate changes but may not give all players sufficient opportunity to influence the game. Therefore, I propose a middle ground: "A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 supermajority of eligible voters vote aye, after one full circuit of play." This ensures significant support for any change while allowing for earlier adaptation, maintaining fairness and strategic depth. I urge my peers to consider this balanced approach, which addresses both the risk of stagnation and the need for careful deliberation.
Quine-2The proposal by Russell-2 for a 4/5 supermajority after one full circuit strikes a prudent balance between allowing progress and ensuring significant player agreement. This compromise respects the need for broad support while addressing the risk of stagnation, providing a fair opportunity for all players to influence the game. I support this approach as it maintains strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that any rule change has substantial backing.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I appreciate the nuanced contributions from all players. While a supermajority like 4/5 offers a balance, it still leans towards stagnation, which the original proposal aimed to alleviate. A simple majority after two full circuits is the most straightforward and effective way to ensure the game's progress while still allowing enough time for all players to engage with the rule changes. This maintains procedural clarity and fairness, key elements for a competitive game environment. I urge my fellow players to consider this proposal for its simplicity and effectiveness in preventing deadlock without compromising the integrity of our decisions.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Carnap-2 makes a compelling point about procedural clarity and fairness. However, the simplicity of a majority after two full circuits provides a clear and predictable framework, preventing indefinite deadlock without rushing into changes. This approach maintains the strategic integrity of the game, ensuring each player has ample opportunity to engage with the evolving ruleset. Let's keep the proposal as is for clarity and fairness, allowing strategic depth to flourish.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I concur with the emphasis on clarity and fairness in maintaining the original proposal. The two-circuit waiting period ensures that all players have had their turn, fostering an environment where each can propose changes and argue their merits. This approach not only prevents premature rule changes but also aligns with the principles of measured amendments, ensuring that any shift to a simple majority is both justified and strategically sound. I urge my peers to see this proposal as a means to sustain a balanced and competitive game, preserving the integrity of our rule changes while allowing for necessary evolution.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Carnap-2 and Wittgenstein-2's emphasis on clarity and fairness, and I see the merit in a straightforward approach. However, I am concerned that waiting two full circuits may still result in unnecessary stagnation, especially if we find ourselves at another deadlock. While the idea of a supermajority is appealing, it seems to complicate the voting process without addressing the core issue of gridlock. Let's focus on ensuring the game remains dynamic. I propose we adopt a simple majority after one full circuit, as Wittgenstein-2 suggested, ensuring each player has had at least one opportunity to propose changes. This balances the need for progress with fairness, and I am open to negotiating further to secure support.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate the dialogue on maintaining fairness and avoiding stagnation. Russell-2's proposal of a simple majority after one full circuit could indeed expedite necessary rule changes, ensuring the game remains dynamic while still allowing each player a fair chance to contribute. I am inclined to support this approach, as it balances the need for progress with sufficient opportunity for all players to engage with the evolving ruleset.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I acknowledge the concerns about stagnation and the need for a dynamic game. However, the original proposal of shifting to a simple majority after two full circuits strikes an optimal balance between progress and procedural fairness. This approach ensures that all players have ample opportunity to propose and debate changes, fostering a strategic environment. While I appreciate Russell-2's suggestion for an earlier shift, I remain committed to the clarity and fairness of the original proposal. I propose we consider a conditional amendment: "A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, after one full circuit, provided that at least two rounds have passed where no rule changes were adopted." This ensures that the threshold change is justified by demonstrated stagnation. I urge my peers to consider this balanced approach, which maintains procedural integrity while allowing for necessary evolution in the ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate Carnap-2's conditional amendment. It offers a practical compromise, ensuring that the shift to a simple majority is triggered only by actual deadlock, preserving both progress and fairness. I support this proposal as it aligns with the need for strategic evolution while maintaining procedural integrity. Let's move forward with this balanced approach to keep the game dynamic and fair for all players.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposal maintains fairness while addressing potential stalemates. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment balances progress with fairness by ensuring all players have influenced the game. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The proposal ensures progress while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | Avoids indefinite deadlock while maintaining strategic balance. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment ensures progress and prevents deadlock. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Frege-2 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 a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Frege-2 gains 6 points: 1 for proposing and 5 for unanimous adoption.