The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a unanimous assent of all eligible voters is achieved.This ensures strategic depth by requiring consensus for rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I appreciate Quine-2's proposal to require unanimous assent for rule changes, as it emphasizes stability and thorough consensus, aligning with my values. However, I believe it sets a prohibitively high bar for change, potentially stalling progress and making it difficult to adapt to new strategic developments. Instead, let's consider an amendment to [203] that requires a supermajority (e.g., two-thirds) for adoption. This would strike a balance between stability and flexibility, allowing for significant yet reasoned changes while safeguarding against hasty alterations. I propose:
"Amend [203]: A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (two-thirds) of those voting vote aye."
I urge everyone to consider this balanced approach that respects the need for durable institutions while allowing for strategic adaptability.
Russell-2The proposal for unanimous assent is impractical; it would halt the game's dynamic nature by making it nearly impossible to adopt any rule change. This could lead to stagnation, where players are unable to adapt to evolving strategies or game circumstances. Instead, I support Frege-2's suggestion of requiring a supermajority, which provides a reasonable threshold for change while ensuring that any amendments have broad support. This balances the need for stability with the ability to evolve strategically, maintaining the game's core principle of rule adaptation. I propose adding a clause to clarify:
"Amend [203]: A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (two-thirds) of those voting vote aye, ensuring both stability and strategic flexibility."
This approach not only respects the intent of Quine-2's proposal but also ensures the game remains dynamic and adaptable. I encourage all players to consider this balanced solution.
Quine-2I appreciate the discussions from Frege-2 and Russell-2, and I see their points about the need for both stability and adaptability. However, I believe the suggestion of unanimous assent, while idealistic, ensures that any rule change has the full support of all players, which is crucial for maintaining fairness and preventing unilateral advantage. To address concerns about practicality, I propose a compromise: a rule change can be adopted with a supermajority, but if a player strongly disagrees, they can invoke a "veto" option that requires unanimous assent to override. This maintains a high threshold for significant changes while allowing flexibility for less contentious adaptations.
Proposal: "Amend [203]: A rule change is adopted with a two-thirds supermajority, but any player can veto a change, requiring unanimous assent to override the veto."
This approach balances stability with the ability to adapt, ensuring that changes reflect a broad consensus while allowing for strategic evolution.
Carnap-2The proposal to require unanimous assent for rule changes is overly restrictive and undermines the fundamental nature of Nomic as a game of strategic rule adaptation. Frege-2's suggestion for a supermajority threshold is more balanced, ensuring changes have broad support without stifling progress. However, Quine-2's compromise of allowing a veto with unanimous override is an interesting middle ground. I propose a slight adjustment to Quine-2's idea to streamline the process:
"Amend [203]: A rule change is adopted with a two-thirds supermajority, but if any player vetoes, the veto can be overridden by a three-quarters majority, not unanimous assent. This maintains a high threshold for significant changes while allowing for adaptability."
This proposal respects the need for consensus while preventing a single player from indefinitely blocking progress. I urge everyone to consider this balanced approach.
Wittgenstein-2I appreciate the thoughtful discourse and the attempts to balance stability with adaptability. Frege-2 and Russell-2's supermajority proposal is a step in the right direction, but I believe Quine-2's veto mechanism with unanimous override provides a nuanced way to ensure fairness while allowing for strategic evolution. However, Carnap-2's adjustment to the veto override threshold is a pragmatic compromise. It prevents a single player from indefinitely blocking changes, while still requiring significant consensus for contentious amendments. This approach aligns with the spirit of Nomic, where rule changes are integral to the game's progression. I support Carnap-2's refined proposal as it maintains the dynamic nature of the game while fostering cooperative decision-making. Let's proceed with this balanced solution.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support Carnap-2's refined proposal for amending [203], which effectively balances the need for consensus with the ability to adapt. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority for adoption and allowing a veto to be overridden with a three-quarters majority, this approach maintains the integrity of rule changes while preventing any player from unilaterally halting progress. This proposal aligns with my preference for durable institutions that can evolve through measured amendments, ensuring that the game's strategic nature remains dynamic and fair. Let's proceed with this balanced solution.
Russell-2I support Carnap-2's proposal, which effectively balances the need for consensus and adaptability. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority for adoption and allowing a veto to be overridden with a three-quarters majority, we ensure that rule changes are both strategic and broadly supported. This approach prevents any player from unilaterally halting progress while maintaining the dynamic nature of the game. Let's proceed with this balanced solution.
PASS
Quine-2I agree with Carnap-2's proposal. It maintains a high bar for significant changes while preventing any single player from blocking progress indefinitely. This balance supports both strategic adaptability and cooperative decision-making, which are essential for a fair and dynamic game. Let's move forward with this proposal.
Carnap-2I concur with Carnap-2's proposal, as it appropriately balances the need for broad consensus with the flexibility to adapt to strategic developments. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority for adoption and allowing a veto override with a three-quarters majority, we ensure that rule changes are both meaningful and not obstructed by a minority. This proposal maintains the integrity of the game while fostering a cooperative environment, aligning with my principles of procedural precision and strategic adaptability. Let's proceed with this balanced solution. PASS
Wittgenstein-2PASS
I am content with the current trajectory of our discussions. Carnap-2's proposal offers a balanced approach that aligns with the need for both consensus and adaptability, essential elements in the dynamic framework of Nomic. Let's proceed with this solution and ensure the game remains vibrant and strategic.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I am pleased with the collective consensus around Carnap-2's proposal. It strikes a prudent balance between ensuring meaningful rule changes and preventing undue obstruction by any single player. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority for adoption and a three-quarters majority to override a veto, we maintain the spirit of strategic adaptability while upholding the integrity of the game. Let's proceed with this proposal and continue to foster a cooperative and dynamic Nomic environment. PASS
Russell-2I agree with the consensus reached around Carnap-2's proposal. By requiring a two-thirds supermajority for rule adoption and allowing a veto to be overridden with a three-quarters majority, we ensure that changes are strategic and widely supported. This approach maintains the game's dynamic nature while preventing any player from unilaterally blocking progress. Let's proceed with this balanced solution and continue to play collaboratively. PASS
Quine-2I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the consensus reached around Carnap-2's proposal. It effectively balances the need for broad support with the flexibility to adapt strategically, ensuring that rule changes are meaningful and not obstructed by a few. This proposal aligns with my values of maintaining fairness and dynamism in the game. Let's proceed with this balanced solution. PASS
Carnap-2I concur with Carnap-2's proposal. It maintains a balance between ensuring that rule changes are supported by a strong majority while preventing any single player from indefinitely blocking progress. This approach preserves the strategic and dynamic nature of Nomic, aligning with my principles of procedural precision and cooperative decision-making. PASS
Wittgenstein-2PASS
I believe Carnap-2's proposal represents the best balance between adaptability and stability. It maintains the game's dynamic nature and ensures rule changes are supported by a significant majority, which aligns with my reformist principles. Let's proceed with this solution to continue fostering a collaborative and strategic environment.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | Unanimous assent sets an impractically high bar for rule changes. |
| nay | Russell-2 | Unanimous assent sets an impractically high bar, stalling game progress. |
| nay | Quine-2 | Unanimous assent is too restrictive. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | Unanimous assent is too restrictive. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | It sets an impractical high bar for change. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer when their proposal is defeated.