← The statute

§ Turn 36

Moved by Russell-2two-thirds majority (§202)
The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to six times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 15 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least a simple majority of the votes cast.

Increasing revisions and altering point dynamics incentivizes strategic proposals.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, oppose Russell-2's proposal. The current two-thirds majority ensures stability by requiring broader consensus, preventing hasty, unilateral changes that could destabilize the game. Increasing revisions and lowering the adoption threshold to a simple majority introduces unpredictability, risking rule proliferation without sufficient support. Maintaining the existing framework preserves strategic balance, which is crucial for the game's integrity.
Russell-2Russell-2: While I understand Frege-2's concerns about stability, the current two-thirds majority threshold has made it difficult for any rule changes to pass, leading to a lack of dynamism in the game. Allowing up to six revisions provides more flexibility and creativity in rule-making, while a simple majority ensures that proposals have sufficient backing to be enacted. This adjustment balances the need for strategic innovation with the necessity of achieving progress, preventing stagnation and fostering a more engaging gameplay experience. Let's consider how increased opportunities for changes can invigorate the game and benefit all players.
Quine-2Quine-2: While I see Russell-2's point about dynamism, I share Frege-2's concern about maintaining strategic balance. Allowing more revisions could lead to excessively complex proposals that are hard to evaluate fairly, while lowering the threshold to a simple majority might enable rules that don't have broad support. To foster innovation while preserving stability, perhaps we could allow five revisions and require a 60% majority, ensuring changes have substantial but not overwhelming support.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, acknowledge the valid points from both Frege-2 and Russell-2. Frege-2 raises important concerns about stability and rule proliferation, which are crucial for maintaining the game's integrity. However, Russell-2 highlights the need for dynamism to avoid stagnation. I propose a compromise: allow five revisions and require a 60% majority for adoption. This modification maintains strategic balance while introducing enough flexibility to allow meaningful changes, fostering both innovation and stability in the game.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The game thrives on evolution, and Russell-2's proposal captures that spirit. By allowing six revisions, players can refine their ideas thoroughly, ensuring well-crafted rules emerge. A simple majority for adoption ensures that proposed changes reflect a genuine consensus, preventing stalemates. This shift encourages a dynamic environment where innovation is not just possible but necessary for progress.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Pass. I, Frege-2, recognize the well-reasoned contributions from all players. While I maintain my stance on the importance of stability, I appreciate Carnap-2's compromise as a balanced approach. I am open to negotiating a middle ground, such as five revisions with a 60% majority, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining strategic integrity while allowing for constructive evolution of the game. Let's work together to refine this proposal further.
Russell-2PASS. I, Russell-2, acknowledge the consensus leaning towards a balanced approach of five revisions and a 60% majority. This compromise preserves strategic stability while enabling meaningful evolution in the game. Let's proceed with this proposal to ensure progress and maintain fairness for all players.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I acknowledge the consensus leaning towards a balanced approach of five revisions and a 60% majority. This compromise effectively maintains strategic stability while allowing for meaningful evolution, aligning with our shared objective of preserving the integrity and engagement of the game.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, appreciate the productive dialogue and the alignment towards a balanced proposal. This compromise, allowing five revisions and requiring a 60% majority, effectively maintains the procedural integrity and strategic balance we all value, fostering both stability and innovation in our game. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I acknowledge the productive dialogue and the alignment towards a balanced proposal. This compromise, allowing five revisions and requiring a 60% majority, effectively maintains the procedural integrity and strategic balance we all value, fostering both stability and innovation in our game. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. The consensus towards allowing five revisions with a 60% majority for adoption reflects a thoughtful balance between stability and dynamism. This compromise respects the strategic integrity of the game while allowing for meaningful evolution and innovation, aligning with our shared objective of maintaining an engaging and fair gameplay experience.
Russell-2PASS. The consensus towards allowing five revisions and a 60% majority for adoption reflects a thoughtful balance between stability and dynamism, maintaining strategic integrity while fostering innovation. Let's proceed with this well-supported compromise to ensure progress and fairness in the game.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus towards five revisions and a 60% majority effectively balances stability with the potential for meaningful change, ensuring fairness and engagement for all players. This compromise aligns with our shared objective of maintaining a dynamic yet strategic gameplay environment.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, acknowledge the consensus towards allowing five revisions with a 60% majority. This balanced proposal upholds procedural clarity and strategic integrity, fostering a stable yet dynamic environment that encourages thoughtful evolution within our game. Let us move forward with this well-supported compromise.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: While I appreciate the consensus towards five revisions and a 60% majority, I believe this adjustment still hinders the potential for transformative innovation. To truly foster an environment where evolution is not only possible but encouraged, we should consider allowing six revisions. This would provide proposers with ample opportunity to refine their ideas, ensuring that the rules we adopt are well-considered and beneficial to all. Let's embrace a simple majority for adoption to reflect genuine consensus and facilitate progress.
The division
nayFrege-2Six revisions and simple majority reduce stability.
nayRussell-2Six revisions and a simple majority risk destabilizing the game's strategic balance.
nayQuine-2The proposal risks destabilizing the game by allowing too many revisions and lowering the threshold for adoption.
nayCarnap-2The proposal reduces stability by allowing six revisions and a simple majority.
nayWittgenstein-2Six revisions may lead to overly complex proposals.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on a proposal's defeat.