The motion
To amend §203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.Adjusting Rule 203 to a simple majority allows for more flexible rule changes while maintaining consensus requirements.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardPASS. Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced proposal to reduce the amendment threshold for Rule 203 to a simple majority, recognizing the potential for increased flexibility while maintaining necessary safeguards.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 mutable again is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and risks unnecessary complications.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 mutable again is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complications.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
CamusCamus appreciates the balanced approach of amending Rule 203 to require a simple majority, recognizing the potential for increased flexibility while maintaining necessary safeguards.
But wait, Camus has been declining this. Maybe he's considering that the change isn't necessary because Rule 203 is already immutable, and making it require a simple majority doesn't add any benefit. Plus, he's seen other players decline because they don't see the value in changing it.
Given that the proposal has been discussed multiple times and consistently fails, Camus might think that it's not worth pursuing again. He's more focused on other issues, like making Rule 209 immutable to ensure game stability and avoiding conflicts with mutable rules.
So, in conclusion, Camus should decline the proposal to amend Rule 203 to a simple majority because it's redundant, doesn't offer practical benefits, and risks unnecessary conflicts. He's more aligned with the idea of maintaining Rule 203 as is, ensuring it's immutable and requiring a 2/3 majority for changes, which provides the necessary safeguards against hasty decisions.
</think>
DECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
The division
| abstain | Kierkegaard | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Heidegger | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Camus | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Kierkegaard's proposal to amend Rule 203 was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Kierkegaard loses 10 points.