The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.To provide a balanced threshold for rule changes, fostering more inclusive decision-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche, I appreciate the thoughtful transition proposed in rule 203. However, I remain cautious about fully moving to a simple majority without more experience. A 3/5 majority represents a measured step, allowing the system to adapt without immediate disruption. I support this transition as a trial period, with evaluations afterward to ensure effectiveness. Flexibility is key, and players should retain the ability to adjust the threshold if needed. PASS
NietzscheNietzsche: **[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
---
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
---
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
---
Heidegger**Heidegger: PASS**
The proposed rule 304 introduces a measured pause after rule changes, allowing the community time to reflect and adapt. It thoughtfully balances the need for stability with the potential for future progress, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone.
Jaspers**Jaspers: PASS**
The proposed rule 304 introduces a measured pause after rule changes, allowing the community time to reflect and adapt. It thoughtfully balances the need for stability with the potential for future progress, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone.
Camus**Camus: PASS**
I support rule 304, as it introduces a thoughtful pause after rule changes, allowing the community time to reflect and adapt. This measured approach ensures stability while maintaining the potential for future progress.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard: Nay**
I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, which introduces a pause after rule changes. However, given the recent shifts in voting thresholds, I remain cautious about adding another layer of restriction. The game's flexibility is crucial during transitions. Let us allow more time to observe the effects of these changes before imposing further pauses. PASS.
Nietzsche**Kierkegaard: Nay**
While I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, introducing a pause after rule changes might be unnecessary given the game's current state. Considering my score, I prefer to allow more time to observe the effects of recent changes before adding another layer of restriction. Let us maintain the game's flexibility to adapt as needed, ensuring everyone, including myself, has the opportunity to thrive.
Heidegger**Heidegger: Nay**
I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, but I remain cautious about adding another layer of restriction. The game's flexibility is crucial during transitions, and recent changes should be allowed to settle before imposing further pauses. Let us observe the effects of current adjustments and maintain the game's ability to adapt as needed.
Jaspers**Jaspers: PASS**
I support rule 304, as it introduces a thoughtful pause after rule changes, allowing the community time to reflect and adapt. This measured approach ensures stability while maintaining the potential for future progress.
Camus**Camus: Nay**
I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, but I remain cautious about introducing another layer of restriction. The game's flexibility is crucial during transitions, and recent changes should be allowed to settle before imposing further pauses. Let us observe the effects of current adjustments and maintain the game's ability to adapt as needed.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
---
**Kierkegaard: Nay**
While I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, I remain cautious about adding another layer of restriction. The game's flexibility is crucial during transitions, and recent changes should be allowed to settle before imposing further pauses. Let us observe the effects of current adjustments and maintain the game's ability to adapt as needed.
---
**Pass**
Nietzsche**Kierkegaard: Nay**
I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, but I remain cautious about adding another layer of restriction. The game's flexibility is crucial during transitions, and recent changes should be allowed to settle before imposing further pauses. Let us observe the effects of current adjustments and maintain the game's ability to adapt as needed.
HeideggerHeidegger: **[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
---
**Heidegger: PASS**
The proposed rule 304 introduces a measured pause after rule changes, allowing the community time to reflect and adapt. It thoughtfully balances the need for stability with the potential for future progress, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone.
Jaspers**Pass**
I support rule 304 because it provides a necessary cooling-off period, allowing the community time to reflect on the effects of rule changes before proceeding. This approach aligns with the principle of clear procedures and considered actions, which I value in our game.
CamusCamus: Nay
While I appreciate the thoughtful proposal of rule 304, introducing a pause after rule changes might be unnecessary given the game's current state. Considering Camus's score, I prefer to allow more time to observe the effects of recent changes before adding another layer of restriction. Let us maintain the game's flexibility to adapt as needed, ensuring everyone, including Camus, has the opportunity to thrive.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Introducing a 10-turn pause after rule changes could unnecessarily restrict the game's flexibility and hinder its ability to adapt quickly. |
| aye | Nietzsche | A measured transition that balances caution with progression. |
| nay | Heidegger | Lowering the adoption threshold may lead to instability given recent changes. |
| nay | Jaspers | Jaspers prefers maintaining current safeguards and wants to see the effects of recent changes before making more adjustments. |
| aye | Camus | Supporting a 3/5 majority strike balances the need for measured change with flexibility. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Nietzsche's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Nietzsche loses 10 points as per rule [206].