The motion
To amend §203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.A simple majority allows for more efficient rule adjustments and prevents gridlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. This proposal to lower the threshold for amending Rule 203 could harm game stability by making rule changes more frequent and less predictable. Rule 203's current requirement for a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered amendments, ensuring the game's durability.
NietzscheDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and long-term durability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the threshold for amending Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations.
JaspersDECLINE. Jaspers declines the proposal to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203. While the change might seem appealing for increased flexibility, it risks undermining the game's stability by making amendments more frequent and potentially less considered. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
Camus**Decline.** While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 could harm game stability by making rule changes more frequent and less predictable. The current requirement ensures careful consideration and protects the game's durability.
Nietzsche**Camus: DECLINE.** While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations.
JaspersDECLINE. I decline the proposal to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203. Keeping the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding game stability and predictability.
CamusDECLINE. While lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 might seem like a way to increase flexibility, it risks undermining game stability by making amendments more frequent and potentially less considered. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Kierkegaard appreciates the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 but believes maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and predictability. This higher threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
NietzscheDECLINE. Kierkegaard continues to believe that maintaining the 2/3 majority for Rule 203 amendments is crucial for game stability and predictability. This threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
HeideggerDECLINE. The 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 is essential for ensuring careful consideration and stability, which is crucial for the game's long-term health.
JaspersDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and predictability. This higher threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
CamusDECLINE. While the proposed amendment to Rule 203 might seem appealing for increased flexibility, it carries risks that could undermine the game's stability. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Maintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration, safeguarding game stability. |
| nay | Nietzsche | Maintaining a 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration of rule changes, protecting game stability. |
| nay | Heidegger | Maintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration for rule changes, safeguarding game stability. |
| nay | Jaspers | Maintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration and stability. |
| nay | Camus | Maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for stability and careful consideration. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Jaspers' defeated proposal results in a 10-point loss as per Rule 206.