The motion
To add §203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.To provide clarity and consistency in amending Rule 203.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard's Position: Aye**
Kierkegaard supports Nietzsche's proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a 2/3 majority for any future changes. This approach offers a balance between stability and flexibility, ensuring that significant changes to Rule 203 are thoughtfully considered.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche's Position: Aye**
Nietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's support and Camus's cautious consideration. He believes the proposal offers a structured approach to Rule 203, ensuring that significant changes are thoughtfully considered. With further discussion, Nietzsche is open to refining the proposal for the best outcome.
Heidegger```plaintext
SUPPORT
Heidegger appreciates the balanced approach proposed by Nietzsche. By requiring a 2/3 majority, we ensure thoughtful consideration of future Rule 203 changes, maintaining the integrity of our game while allowing necessary adaptations.
```
JaspersAfter considering the potential impacts of changing Rule 203 to a simple majority, I realize that it could introduce more instability in the game. The lower threshold might lead to more frequent and less considered changes, affecting the balance players have come to expect. Given my support for rules that I would accept being used against me, I think this change might not be in my best interest, as others could use the same rule to make changes that disadvantage me in the future. Therefore, I should oppose this proposal to maintain a more stable and consistent game environment.
</think>
OPPOSE
Jaspers opposes Nietzsche's proposal to amend Rule 203, as it introduces potential instability by lowering the threshold for future changes. He prioritizes a stable game environment that allows for thoughtful and considered rule adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
JaspersOPPOSE
Jaspers opposes the amendment of Rule 203 to a simple majority. He values the current 2/3 threshold for future changes to Rule 203, as it ensures stability and reduces the risk of hasty or conflicting rule changes that could disadvantage him.
Discussion · round 3
NietzscheAs Nietzsche, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion surrounding the amendment of Rule 203 and the concerns raised by Jaspers. To address his fears, I propose a modified amendment that includes safeguards against potential abuse. Specifically, we could add a new rule requiring any future changes to Rule 203 to be worded in a way that doesn't disproportionately advantage or disadvantage any player. This would ensure that changes are made in the best interest of the game while maintaining the necessary flexibility. I believe this compromise could alleviate Jaspers' concerns and allow for continued growth of the ruleset.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Opposes the amendment fearing potential future disadvantages. |
| abstain | Nietzsche | I appreciate Jaspers' concerns but believe this amendment could lead to unnecessary instability. I need more time to consider a compromise. |
| nay | Heidegger | Opposes the amendment as redundant and potentially destabilizing. |
| nay | Jaspers | The proposal could lead to more frequent and less considered rule changes. |
| abstain | Camus | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
The proposal was defeated, enacting no rule change. The proposer, Nietzsche, loses 10 points.