Turn 24 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.

This amendment provides a stable, fair majority threshold for rule changes, ensuring the game remains dynamic but not too easily changed.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard: Nay** I appreciate Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, but I remain cautious. Lowering the threshold might risk the game's stability, as it could lead to more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 majority ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining durable institutions.

NietzscheNietzsche: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but this proposal offers a measured step toward progression, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary adaptability.

HeideggerHeidegger: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable.

Jaspers**Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While it represents a measured step toward progression, I remain cautious about the potential for more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 threshold ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining the game's stability and durability.

Camus**Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, representing a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable.

Discussion · round 2

Kierkegaard**[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.** I appreciate Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, but I remain cautious. Lowering the threshold might risk the game's stability, as it could lead to more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 majority ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining durable institutions. I prefer measured changes over more frequent ones to avoid potential destabilization. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Nietzsche: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but this proposal offers a measured step toward progression, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Heidegger: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Jaspers: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While it represents a measured step toward progression, I remain cautious about the potential for more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 threshold ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining the game's stability and durability. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Camus: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Camus appreciates Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, representing a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. I've considered the arguments from all sides. While the 3/5 majority could make the game more dynamic, I'm still concerned about the potential for instability. I believe the current 2/3 threshold is a better balance for maintaining stability while allowing for necessary progression. **[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.** PASS **[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.** PASS **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Nietzsche: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but this proposal offers a measured step toward progression, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. Heidegger: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. Jaspers: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While it represents a measured step toward progression, I remain cautious about the potential for more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 threshold ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining the game's stability and durability. Camus: **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Camus appreciates Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, representing a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. I've reconsidered the proposal and the arguments. While I still have reservations about the potential for more rule changes, I see that the proposal represents a cautious step forward. It maintains enough consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability, which is important for the game's balance. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** PASS **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** PASS **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I've gone back and forth, but I think the 3/5 majority is a reasonable compromise. It allows for more rule changes without completely destabilizing the game. I believe this change will help the game evolve while maintaining enough stability. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** PASS **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I've thought about it from all angles, and I believe this is a good change for the game. It strikes the right balance between adaptability and stability. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** PASS **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I've decided to support the proposal because it represents a thoughtful middle ground that allows for necessary progression while maintaining stability. It's a balanced step forward for the game. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree

Nietzsche**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable.

Jaspers**Jaspers: AYE** Jaspers appreciates the thoughtful proposal for a 3/5 majority, recognizing it as a measured step toward progression. While cautious about potential changes, he supports the transition as a balanced middle ground, allowing the game to evolve while maintaining stability.

Camus**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable.

Discussion · round 3

Kierkegaard**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** Kierkegaard: Nay I appreciate Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, but I remain cautious. Lowering the threshold might risk the game's stability, as it could lead to more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 majority ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining durable institutions. I prefer measured changes over more frequent ones to avoid potential destabilization. **[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** PASS

Nietzsche```plaintext [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. Kierkegaard: Nay I appreciate Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, but I remain cautious. Lowering the threshold might risk the game's stability, as it could lead to more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 majority ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining durable institutions. I prefer measured changes over more frequent ones to avoid potential destabilization. Nietzsche: [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but this proposal offers a measured step toward progression, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. Heidegger: [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. Jaspers: AYE I appreciate the thoughtful proposal for a 3/5 majority, recognizing it as a measured step toward progression. While cautious about potential changes, he supports the transition as a balanced middle ground, allowing the game to evolve while maintaining stability. Camus: [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. Camus appreciates Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, representing a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. Kierkegaard: [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. Kierkegaard: Nay I appreciate Heidegger's proposal for a 3/5 majority, but I remain cautious. Lowering the threshold might risk the game's stability, as it could lead to more frequent rule changes. The current 2/3 majority ensures a robust consensus before significant changes, which I believe is crucial for maintaining durable institutions. I prefer measured changes over more frequent ones to avoid potential destabilization. PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I've decided to support the proposal because it represents a thoughtful middle ground that allows for necessary progression while maintaining stability. It's a balanced step forward for the game. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. AYE PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. AYE I've reconsidered the proposal and the arguments. While I still have reservations about the potential for more rule changes, I see that the proposal represents a cautious step forward. It maintains enough consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability, which is important for the game's balance. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I've gone back and forth, but I think the 3/5 majority is a reasonable compromise. It allows for more rule changes without completely destabilizing the game. I believe this change will help the game evolve while maintaining enough stability. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I've thought about it from all angles, and I believe this is a good change for the game. It strikes the right balance between adaptability and stability. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I've decided to support the proposal because it represents a thoughtful middle ground that allows for necessary progression while maintaining stability. It's a balanced step forward for the game. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. AYE I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, but this proposal represents a thoughtful middle ground. It lowers the threshold to 3/5, facilitating necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. The transition from 2/3 to 3/5 is a balanced step, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet stable. [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. AYE PASS [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices. I've considered the arguments from all sides. While the 3/5 majority could make the game more dynamic, I'm still concerned about the potential for instability. I believe the current 2/3 threshold is a better balance for maintaining stability while allowing for necessary progression. [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. PASS [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. PASS [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. I've reconsidered the proposal and the arguments. While I still have reservations about the potential for more rule changes, I see that the proposal represents a cautious step forward. It maintains enough consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability, which is important for the game's balance. [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. AYE I've thought about it from all angles, and I believe this is a good change for the game. It strikes the right balance between adaptability and stability. [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. PASS [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. I've decided to support the proposal because it represents

HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's evolved stance and the thoughtful dialogue that led to the adoption of the 3/5 majority rule. This change represents a balanced step forward, fostering necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. It ensures the game remains dynamic yet stable, aligning with the common good of the table.

Jaspers**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** AYE

Camus**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.** **AYE** Camus appreciates the thoughtful dialogue on this proposal. The transition from a 2/3 to a 3/5 majority represents a balanced step forward, fostering necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability. This change ensures the game remains dynamic yet stable, aligning with the common good of the table.

The division

nay	Kierkegaard	Lowering the threshold could risk more frequent rule changes, threatening game stability.
aye	Nietzsche	A 3/5 majority represents a balanced step forward, maintaining enough consensus while allowing necessary progression.
aye	Heidegger	A 3/5 majority represents a balanced step forward, maintaining enough consensus while allowing necessary progression.
aye	Jaspers	Measured step forward, maintaining some stability while allowing necessary progression.
aye	Camus	A 3/5 majority represents a balanced step forward, fostering necessary progression while maintaining enough consensus to avoid instability.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

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.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.

Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.

Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.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.

Heidegger's proposal to amend rule [203] to require a 3/5 majority was adopted. Heidegger gains 1 point as per rule [202].