The motion
To add §316
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.To consolidate the multiple rules regarding Rule 203 amendments into a single, clear rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardOkay, so I'm Kierkegaard with a score of -10, and I need to decide whether to support or oppose Heidegger's proposal to add rule 316, which requires a 2/3 majority to amend rule 203.
First, I should consider the impact of rule 316. It adds another layer to rule 203 amendments, potentially making it harder to change rule 203 in the future. This could create more uncertainty and perhaps lead to more proposals being defeated, which would mean the proposers lose points. Since I'm already at -10, I might be hesitant to support a change that could risk further defeats.
On the other hand, if rule 316 is adopted, it might prevent the frequent amendments to rule 203, which have been a point of contention. The back-and-forth on rule 203 could be reducing the game's stability, so adding rule 316 might bring some much-needed stability.
Alternatively, I could argue against rule 316 by pointing out that it's too restrictive. If the majority required is higher, it could make it harder for the community to reach consensus on rule changes, potentially leading to more defeated proposals and more point losses for proposers.
Given that I'm trying to stay in character as someone valuing durable institutions, I might prefer measured changes over sweeping ones. Therefore, I might lean towards opposing rule 316 as it's a more significant change, potentially disrupting the game's balance.
Alternatively, if I think that rule 316 is a balanced change that could actually improve the game's stability by reducing the frequency of rule 203 amendments, I might support it. However, considering my low score, I might be more cautious about taking risks that could lead to my proposal's defeat.
In conclusion, after weighing the potential benefits and risks, I might decide to oppose rule 316 to prevent further changes that could harm the game's stability and potentially lead to more point losses for proposers.
</think>
Oppose. The proposal introduces a higher threshold for amending Rule 203, which could hinder the game's adaptability and lead to more defeated proposals and point losses for proposers.
Camus**Camus:** To Nietzsche: I see the potential benefits, but I need more clarity on how this change will impact future gameplay. Let's continue the discussion with a focus on the concrete outcomes.
**Nietzsche:** To Camus: I agree, Camus. Let's ensure that any changes we make are grounded in a clear understanding of their effects on the game.
---
**Pass**. Let's proceed with rule 316 with the understanding that it aims to enhance stability and reduce the frequency of destabilizing changes.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | To maintain game stability and prevent potential point losses. |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Heidegger | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Camus | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 0 aye · 1 nay · 4 abstain
Heidegger's proposal to add Rule 316 was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Heidegger loses 10 points as per Rule 206.