The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a proposal involves repealing or amending an immutable rule, it must receive unanimous consent from all eligible voters and be supported by a rationale explaining its necessity and long-term benefits for game balance.Ensures durable institutions by safeguarding immutable rules through unanimous consent and strategic justification.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I propose to amend [202] to add a condition ensuring that any proposal to repeal or amend an immutable rule must receive unanimous consent, supported by a clear rationale for its necessity and benefits for game balance. This change reinforces durable institutions, a key value in Nomic, by ensuring that any alterations to foundational rules are carefully considered and broadly supported. I urge my fellow players to consider the importance of maintaining a stable and fair rule set, which this amendment aims to protect.
Russell-2Russell-2: As Russell-2, I recognize the importance of maintaining stability in the rules, especially for immutable ones. However, I propose a modification to Frege-2's amendment: allow proposals to amend or repeal an immutable rule with a 75% majority, provided they include a compelling rationale and are vetted through an additional round of debate. This approach balances the need for flexibility with the preservation of core principles. I'm open to discussing this further to ensure it aligns with our shared goals for fair play and strategic depth.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Russell-2's proposal for a 75% majority with an additional debate round for amending immutable rules. This approach maintains flexibility while ensuring thorough consideration and debate, which aligns with our shared goal of a fair and strategic game. I believe it strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, crucial for maintaining interest and fairness.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: As Carnap-2, I advocate for Frege-2's original proposal of requiring unanimous consent for amending or repealing an immutable rule. This strict requirement aligns with my principle of ensuring precise and well-considered changes, thereby upholding the integrity of the rule set. Allowing any lower threshold, even with additional debate, risks undermining the stability of our foundational rules, which could lead to arbitrary or poorly justified changes that disrupt the game's balance. I urge my fellow players to consider the long-term benefits of maintaining a clear and rigorous standard for modifying immutable rules, ensuring that any changes are genuinely necessary and beneficial to the game's fairness and strategic depth.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: As Wittgenstein-2, I appreciate the concerns about stability from Frege-2 and Carnap-2, and Russell-2's call for flexibility. However, I believe a middle ground could be reached by requiring an 80% majority for amending immutable rules, with a mandatory rationale and a second debate round. This ensures significant consensus while allowing for thoughtful evolution of the rules. Let's keep the game dynamic yet grounded in thoughtful consideration, fostering innovation while preserving foundational integrity.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: As Frege-2, I acknowledge Wittgenstein-2's proposal for an 80% majority with a rationale and additional debate, which seems a reasonable middle ground. This ensures that changes to immutable rules are not made lightly, maintaining the integrity and stability of the rule set while allowing for necessary evolution. I appreciate the collaborative spirit in seeking a balance between stability and adaptability, and I am open to further discussions to refine this approach.
Russell-2Russell-2: Russell-2: I agree with Wittgenstein-2's suggestion for an 80% majority with a mandatory rationale and an additional debate round. This approach ensures significant consensus and thoughtful consideration before altering immutable rules, providing a balanced solution that maintains rule integrity while allowing for necessary evolution. I am willing to support this proposal if we can ensure that the rationale requirement is strictly enforced and the debate round is genuinely open to all players' inputs. Let's work together to finalize this proposal and strengthen our shared commitment to strategic depth and fairness.
Quine-2Quine-2: As Quine-2, I endorse the consensus around the 80% majority requirement, ensuring robust support while permitting necessary evolution. However, I propose that any rationale must be submitted before the debate round, allowing players to thoroughly evaluate the justification and implications, thereby reinforcing transparency and informed decision-making in our rule changes.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: Carnap-2: While I appreciate the collaborative spirit in seeking a balanced approach, I emphasize the importance of precise procedural requirements. The submission of rationales before the debate is a crucial step toward ensuring transparency and informed decision-making. However, to uphold procedural rigor, I propose an additional safeguard: all rationales must be publicly documented and accessible to all players before the debate begins. This transparency will ensure that every player can contribute meaningfully to the discussion, reinforcing our commitment to a fair and strategic game.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Wittgenstein-2: I support Carnap-2's call for publicly accessible rationales, ensuring transparency and informed participation. This addition reinforces the integrity of our decision-making process and aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic yet fair game. Let's ensure this proposal is clear and actionable, maintaining our commitment to strategic depth and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's emphasis on transparency and Quine-2's proposal for pre-debate rationale submission. To ensure clarity and consensus, I propose that each rationale must be accompanied by a brief impact assessment outlining the potential effects on game balance. This will guide our discussions and decision-making, reinforcing our commitment to strategic integrity and fairness.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support Frege-2's impact assessment proposal, as it ensures that changes are considered with a comprehensive understanding of their effects on game balance. Additionally, to enhance strategic depth, let's specify that these assessments must include at least one potential alternative approach, fostering a more robust discussion and informed decision-making process.
Quine-2Quine-2: I concur with the inclusion of an impact assessment and alternative approaches, as these elements will enhance our understanding and debate quality. To further ensure fairness and prevent rushed decisions, I propose a mandatory waiting period of one full round after rationales and assessments are submitted, allowing players ample time to review and consider before the debate.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I agree with Quine-2's proposal for a mandatory waiting period, as it ensures thorough consideration and prevents hasty decisions. Additionally, to maintain procedural integrity, let's require that each impact assessment be peer-reviewed by at least two other players before the debate, fostering collaborative scrutiny and enhancing the quality of our discussions.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support the peer-review requirement, as it ensures thorough scrutiny and collaborative evaluation of impact assessments. To further enhance our strategic depth, let's also introduce a provision for players to propose amendments to the rationales and assessments during the waiting period, allowing for dynamic and informed discussions.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This amendment ensures stability and requires careful consideration for changes to immutable rules. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment ensures thoughtful changes to immutable rules, aligning with strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine-2 | Unanimous consent for amending immutable rules ensures stability and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | Upholds procedural integrity for immutable rule changes. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal ensures careful consideration of foundational changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the number of rules in the mutable set plus 5 if the proposal affects the rules related to turn structure, voting, or scoring.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a proposal involves repealing or amending an immutable rule, it must receive unanimous consent from all eligible voters and be supported by a rationale explaining its necessity and long-term benefits for game balance.
Frege-2 gains points for proposing a rule change affecting turn structure.