The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.To accelerate the shift to a simple majority voting threshold, ensuring more efficient rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardI see the merit in the proposal as a balanced evolution of rule 203, offering a clearer path towards majority-driven changes post-threshold. While I appreciate Kierkegaard's stance on integrity, this shift could enhance efficiency, and I am persuaded to support it.
AYE
NietzscheNietzsche would agree to Jaspers' proposal and suggest further tweaks to make the rule more lenient. He might propose reducing the number of circuits needed for the threshold to drop to a simple majority from two to one, enhancing efficiency. Additionally, he might suggest adjusting the point penalty to a smaller number, such as 5 points, to encourage more players to engage without heavy resistance. His aim is to find a balanced, consensus-driven compromise that respects the game's integrity while fostering progress.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates the balanced evolution proposed by Jaspers and supports the amendment as a fair and progressive step. However, he would further suggest reducing the number of required circuits from two to one, accelerating the shift to a simple majority. Additionally, he proposes lowering the point penalty for opposing an adopted change from 10 to 5, fostering a more engaged and dynamic game environment while maintaining integrity.
JaspersI appreciate the balanced evolution proposed by Jaspers. While I acknowledge the merit in transitioning to a simple majority threshold post two circuits, I would further suggest exploring alternative methods to lower the threshold to one circuit, potentially adjusting the point penalty to a smaller figure, such as five points, to encourage greater engagement without excessive penalties. This compromise reflects a commitment to both integrity and progress.
AYE
CamusI appreciate Jaspers' balanced proposal, which thoughtfully evolves rule 203. While I support the shift to a simple majority post two circuits, I would further suggest reducing the penalty for opposing an adopted change to 5 points, fostering engagement without excessive deterrence. This compromise balances integrity with progress.
AYE
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful evolution of rule 203 proposed by Jaspers, acknowledging the balance it strikes between integrity and progress. While Kierkegaard supports the amendment as a measured step forward, they cautions against overstepping too quickly, suggesting a wait-and-see approach to assess its impact before considering further revisions like reducing the circuit threshold or lowering the penalty.
NietzscheNietzsche would agree to Jaspers' proposal and suggest further tweaks to make the rule more lenient and efficient. He would propose reducing the number of circuits needed to trigger the threshold drop from two to one, accelerating the shift to a simple majority. Additionally, he would adjust the point penalty to 5 points, encouraging greater engagement without excessive penalties. This balanced, consensus-driven approach respects game integrity while fostering progress, incorporating valuable feedback from multiple players.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful evolution of rule 203 proposed by Jaspers, seeing it as a balanced step forward. While he supports the amendment, he further suggests reducing the required circuits from two to one to expedite the shift towards a simple majority. Additionally, he proposes lowering the point penalty to 5 points, fostering greater engagement without excessive penalties. This adjustment aligns with the discussion's direction, offering a clear path while maintaining game integrity.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers supports the amendment and appreciates the constructive feedback. They propose a compromise: reduce the penalty to 5 points to encourage engagement, while reserving further circuit adjustments for future discussions to assess their impact.
CamusCamus appreciates the balanced evolution proposed by Jaspers and supports the amendment. He notes that the rule change stays within the mutable rule limit and suggests exploring further reforms to keep the game dynamic and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard supports Jaspers' proposal as a measured evolution that respects rule integrity while allowing for necessary progress. While Kierkegaard cautions against overstepping too quickly, they acknowledge the proposal's balance and potential to enhance efficiency.
NietzscheNietzsche: Nietzsche supports Jaspers' proposal and suggests further adjustments to enhance efficiency. He proposes reducing the required circuits to one, accelerating the shift to a simple majority, and lowering the penalty to 5 points to encourage greater engagement. This balanced, consensus-driven approach maintains game integrity while fostering progress.
HeideggerHeidegger supports the amendment, appreciating Jaspers' balanced evolution of rule 203. He looks forward to evaluating its impact and suggests open dialogue for any future adjustments.
JaspersJaspers supports the amendment as a balanced step forward, appreciating the compromise it represents. Moving to a simple majority post two circuits while maintaining voter accountability is a thoughtful evolution that aligns with the game's principles.
CamusSupport the amendment as a thoughtful evolution of rule 203. It maintains integrity while allowing progress, and I look forward to evaluating its impact before considering further adjustments.
The division
| aye | Kierkegaard | Supporting the proposal allows for a measured evolution of Rule 203, balancing integrity with progress. |
| aye | Nietzsche | Supports the balanced evolution of rule 203 with considerations for future adjustments to enhance efficiency and engagement. |
| aye | Heidegger | Supports measured progress towards majority rule after two circuits, maintaining game integrity while allowing efficiency. |
| aye | Jaspers | The proposed amendment to Rule 203 represents a balanced evolution that respects game integrity while allowing for necessary progress. |
| aye | Camus | Supports the amendment as a balanced, integrity-preserving step towards progress, with an eye on future evaluations. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
The proposal to amend rule [203] was adopted with unanimous consent, so no points are awarded or deducted. The ruleset is updated accordingly, and no paradox is introduced.