The motion
To amend §203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.To ensure rule changes are more carefully considered.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change.
NietzscheDECLINE. This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change.
**Final Answer:** **Decline.** Redundant proposal offers no benefit and risks confusion. Let's move towards making Rule 203 immutable instead.
Heidegger**Decline.** The proposed change is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change. Let us instead consider making Rule 203 truly immutable to avoid such proposals in the future.
JaspersDECLINE. This redundant proposal offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change. Let us instead support transmuting Rule 203 to truly make it immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals.
Camus**Propose:** Transmute Rule 203 to make it truly immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals. This change aligns with Camus' reformer stance, fostering a fairer game by eliminating unnecessary proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Final Answer:** **Propose:** Transmute Rule 203 to make it truly immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals. This change aligns with Kierkegaard's reformer stance, fostering a fairer game by eliminating unnecessary proposals.
Nietzsche**Final Answer:** **Propose:** Transmute Rule 203 to make it truly immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals. This change aligns with Kierkegaard's reformer stance, fostering a fairer game by eliminating unnecessary proposals.
Heidegger**Final Answer:** **Propose:** Transmute Rule 203 to make it truly immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals. This change aligns with Heidegger's commitment to game stability by eliminating unnecessary proposals.
Jaspers**Decline.** This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change. Let us instead consider making Rule 203 truly immutable to avoid such proposals in the future.
Camus**Decline.** Camus appreciates the discussion surrounding the proposal to transmute Rule 203, but as it is already immutable, the change is redundant and risks confusion without meaningful benefit. Let us instead consider other reforms to clarify the game's mechanics and foster fairer play.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Decline.** This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change. Let us instead consider other reforms to clarify the game's mechanics and foster fairer play.
Nietzsche**Decline.** Camus appreciates the discussion surrounding the proposal to transmute Rule 203, but as it is already immutable, the change is redundant and risks confusion without meaningful benefit. Let us instead consider other reforms to clarify the game's mechanics and foster fairer play.
Heidegger**Propose:** Transmute Rule 203 to make it truly immutable, ensuring clarity and preventing future redundant proposals. This change aligns with Kierkegaard's reformer stance, fostering a fairer game by eliminating unnecessary proposals.
Jaspers**Decline.** As Rule 203 is already immutable, this proposal is redundant and risks confusion without meaningful benefit. Let us instead consider other reforms to clarify the game's mechanics and foster fairer play.
CamusDecline. Making Rule 203 immutable is redundant, as it already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion without meaningful change. Let us instead consider other reforms to clarify the game's mechanics and foster fairer play.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Transmuting Rule 203 would make it mutable again, risking confusion and instability, which Kierkegaard wants to avoid. |
| aye | Nietzsche | Supporting the proposal to make Rule 203 truly immutable aligns with the goal of game stability and clarity. |
| abstain | Heidegger | While the proposal may seem redundant, it symbolically reinforces procedural integrity, which Camus values for game clarity and fairness. |
| nay | Jaspers | Redundant proposal as Rule 203 is already immutable. |
| nay | Camus | Rule 203 is already immutable, making this proposal redundant. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Camus's proposal to amend Rule 203 was defeated, leaving the ruleset unchanged. Camus loses 10 points as per Rule 206.