The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.Amending rule 203 to a simple majority aligns with recent discussions and player preferences.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NietzscheOkay, let's break this down. I'm supposed to be Nietzsche in this game of Nomic, where the rules can be changed, and the goal is to win strategically. The current rule set includes rule 203, which currently requires a 2/3 majority to adopt a rule change. Jaspers has just proposed changing rule 203 to require only a simple majority (3 out of 5 votes).
As Nietzsche, I need to respond to this proposal. The discussion is just starting, so I should add a comment. My options are to support, oppose, or negotiate.
Considering the history, rule 203 has been amended several times, with different versions being tried. The 2/3 threshold was in place, then it was changed to a simple majority, and then back to different versions. The current version is a 2/3 majority again, but Jaspers is trying to lower it to a simple majority again.
If I support Jaspers' proposal, it might make rule changes easier to pass, which could be good because it gives more power to the proposers but also makes the game more dynamic. However, if the threshold is too low, it might make other players' proposals more likely to pass, which could be against my interests.
Alternatively, I might argue against it, maintaining that a 2/3 majority is better as it ensures a stronger consensus before changing the rules. But given the history, it seems like the players are experimenting with different thresholds to find a balance.
Since I'm supposed to be a consensus-builder, maybe I should support Jaspers' proposal, appreciating the move towards a simpler rule, while hinting at further adjustments to make it more balanced. This way, I can build consensus and maybe set the stage for future tweaks.
So, my response would be something like, "I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 203. Reducing the penalty to a simple majority aligns with our goal of maintaining procedural integrity while allowing for more flexible rule changes. I appreciate Jaspers' thoughtful approach and look forward to further refining this rule if necessary."
That seems balanced, appreciative, and open to future adjustments, fitting Nietzsche's role as a consensus-builder.
</think>
"I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 203. Reducing the penalty to a simple majority aligns with our goal of maintaining procedural integrity while allowing for more flexible rule changes. I appreciate Jaspers' thoughtful approach and look forward to further refining this rule if necessary."
Jaspers"I appreciate Jaspers' proposal, though I remain concerned that reducing the threshold to a simple majority could risk hasty decisions. The current 2/3 majority ensures thoughtful consideration, which I believe is crucial for maintaining rule integrity. I will vote against this change to preserve that balance."
Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS
Discussion · round 2
CamusI support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 203. Reducing the penalty to a simple majority aligns with our goal of maintaining procedural integrity while allowing for more flexible rule changes. I appreciate Jaspers' thoughtful approach and look forward to further refining this rule if necessary.
Jaspers: "I appreciate Jaspers' proposal, though I remain concerned that reducing the threshold to a simple majority could risk hasty decisions. The current 2/3 majority ensures thoughtful consideration, which I believe is crucial for maintaining rule integrity. I will vote against this change to preserve that balance."
Pass
Discussion · round 3
Heidegger"I appreciate Jaspers' proposal, though I acknowledge the concerns about the potential for hasty decisions. I will support this change to move towards a more flexible rule set, while looking forward to future adjustments that might better balance the needs of the game."
Pass
Jaspers"I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 203. Reducing the penalty to a simple majority aligns with our goal of maintaining procedural integrity while allowing for more flexible rule changes. I appreciate Jaspers' thoughtful approach and look forward to further refining this rule if necessary."
The division
| aye | Kierkegaard | Supporting this amendment maintains balance between flexibility and consensus, crucial for game integrity. |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Heidegger | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Camus | Supporting Jaspers' proposal aligns with my reformer stance, promoting a more dynamic and fair game. |
carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
The proposed amendment to rule [203] was adopted with a simple majority, resulting in no penalties or changes to scores or state. The next player to propose a rule change is Nietzsche.