The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters vote aye.Increasing the majority threshold will help ensure stability and require broader consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to shift from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes under [203] is ill-advised. Such a change would make it significantly harder to adapt the ruleset, which could stagnate gameplay and prevent necessary adjustments. This proposal threatens the flexibility we've built into our ruleset, potentially hindering strategic innovation. I urge everyone to consider how this might lock us into suboptimal rules, contrary to our collective interests. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Russell-2Russell-2: Frege-2 raises a valid concern about stagnation, but consider the benefits of stability. A two-thirds majority ensures only widely supported changes pass, reducing the risk of erratic rule alterations that could destabilize our game. This proposal isn't about rigidity; it's about fostering deliberate consensus. Let's aim for strategic depth rather than frequent shifts. I urge everyone to support this for a more stable and thoughtful evolution of our ruleset. I vote "aye."
Quine-2The proposal for a two-thirds majority to adopt rule changes under [203] may indeed foster stability, but at the cost of stifling adaptability. In a game like Nomic, the ability to adjust rules responsively is crucial for maintaining engagement and strategic depth. A higher threshold could disproportionately empower a minority, allowing them to block changes even when there's substantial support, leading to frustration and potential gridlock. This could undermine the dynamic nature of the game, which thrives on the ability to evolve rules as needed. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal, advocating for preserving our current simple majority rule to ensure the game remains vibrant and responsive.
Carnap-2The proposal to increase the threshold for rule adoption to a two-thirds majority under [203] would unduly limit our ability to adapt the ruleset effectively. This change could empower a minority to block widely supported and beneficial amendments, undermining the dynamic nature of Nomic that relies on flexibility and responsiveness. Maintaining a simple majority ensures that changes can be made when they have substantial support, preserving the game's strategic depth and engagement. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2The proposal to switch to a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes under [203] risks creating an environment where progress is stifled by minority resistance. While stability is valuable, our game thrives on adaptability and innovation, which a simple majority supports by allowing responsive and strategic rule evolution. A higher threshold could lead to deadlock, preventing us from making beneficial changes that have broad but not overwhelming support. Let's keep our ruleset flexible to maintain the dynamic and engaging nature of Nomic. I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2The proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes under [203] would indeed hinder the fluid evolution of our game, which thrives on adaptability. By preserving the simple majority, we ensure that changes with significant support can proceed, maintaining strategic flexibility and preventing any minority from blocking progress. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal, emphasizing the importance of our current system for fostering dynamic and responsive gameplay.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the concerns about adaptability and the risk of minority blockage, but let's consider the balance we might achieve. A two-thirds majority doesn't mean rigidity; it means fostering more thoughtful deliberation and ensuring only well-considered changes pass. This could enhance the strategic depth of our game, encouraging players to build stronger coalitions and engage more deeply in the rule-making process. I urge everyone to consider this shift as a way to elevate the quality of our rule changes, not just their frequency. I still vote "aye."
Quine-2The proposal for a two-thirds majority under [203] seems well-intentioned but risks tipping the balance too far towards stability at the expense of adaptability. In Nomic, the essence lies in evolving our rules to maintain engagement and strategic richness, something a simple majority supports effectively. A higher threshold could indeed allow a minority to stifle beneficial changes, leading to frustration and a less dynamic game. It's crucial to maintain a system that encourages responsive rule evolution, ensuring our gameplay remains vibrant and inclusive. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: Frege-2 and Quine-2 rightly emphasize the importance of flexibility and the risks of minority blockage with a two-thirds majority under [203]. A simple majority preserves our ability to adapt strategically, ensuring changes with substantial support can be implemented. Let's maintain the dynamic and responsive nature of our game. I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2The proposal to shift to a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes under [203] is fundamentally flawed. It disregards the essence of Nomic, which is its capacity for evolution and adaptability. By making it harder to change rules, we risk entrenching the status quo, allowing a small minority to block beneficial changes that have significant support. This could lead to frustration and stagnation, undermining the strategic depth and engagement that our current simple majority rule fosters. Let's prioritize maintaining a flexible and dynamic ruleset that encourages innovation and responsive gameplay. I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I appreciate Russell-2's point about fostering thoughtful deliberation, but we must remember that the essence of Nomic lies in its adaptability. The current simple majority rule allows us to maintain strategic flexibility and ensures that changes with substantial support can be implemented. By preserving this rule, we keep the game dynamic and responsive, encouraging innovation and preventing a minority from blocking progress. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Russell-2Russell-2: While stability is important, I acknowledge that adaptability is key in Nomic. Let's consider a middle ground, perhaps a supermajority of three-fifths, which balances thoughtful deliberation with the ability to make necessary changes. This could prevent gridlock while still ensuring broad support for rule changes, maintaining both strategic depth and responsiveness. I'm open to discussing this further to build a consensus.
Quine-2The proposal for a two-thirds majority under [203] is well-intentioned but risks undermining the very adaptability that makes Nomic engaging. A simple majority keeps the game dynamic, allowing players to evolve the rules responsibly. Let's maintain a system that encourages responsive changes and strategic depth. I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Carnap-2The proposal for a two-thirds majority under [203] seems well-intentioned but could lead to strategic stalemates, where a minority holds disproportionate power to block widely supported changes. This could hinder the dynamic nature of Nomic, which thrives on flexibility and adaptability. Let's preserve the simple majority to ensure that our rule changes remain vibrant and responsive, fostering a strategic environment that encourages innovation and collaboration. Therefore, I vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2The proposal for a two-thirds majority under [203] threatens to undermine the fluid and responsive nature of Nomic. While thoughtful deliberation is important, the current simple majority rule strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, allowing us to evolve our rules in a way that maintains strategic depth and engagement. Let's continue to support a system that encourages innovation and prevents any minority from blocking progress. I vote "nay" on this proposal.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | Preserve adaptability with simple majority. |
| nay | Russell-2 | A two-thirds majority could stifle adaptability and empower a minority to block changes. |
| nay | Quine-2 | A two-thirds majority would stifle adaptability and empower minority blockage. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The simple majority maintains necessary adaptability. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | A two-thirds majority stifles rule adaptability and strategic innovation. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, the rule applies to award points to the proposer.