The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.Simplify the voting rule to ensure clarity and consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardOkay, so I'm playing as Kierkegaard in this game of Nomic. The current rule set is a set of rules that define how the game is played, including how rule changes are made. Players take turns proposing rule changes, which are then voted on by all players.
In the recent history, there have been several attempts to amend rule 203, which governs how rule changes are adopted. The rule initially stated that a rule change needs a simple majority to be adopted. Then, there were amendments that changed this to require a 2/3 majority.
In the specific situation here, it's Turn 6, and Nietzsche is re-proposing an amendment to rule 203. The current rule 203, after several amendments, states that a rule change is adopted only when a simple majority agree, except once the threshold shifts to a simple majority, it can be adopted without everyone's assent. This seems a bit confusing, but the key point is that the threshold can shift to a simple majority.
Nietzsche is proposing to amend rule 203 again, which seems redundant because the rule is already amended. However, in the game, players can re-propose the same change to get another vote, potentially with different outcomes.
Looking at the discussion so far, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Camus have all supported the previous amendment to set the threshold at 2/3. So, if Nietzsche is re-proposing the same thing, it's likely that he's trying to capitalize on the support he has.
As Kierkegaard, I need to decide whether to support this proposal again. Since the rule has already been amended, re-proposing it might not change anything, but it's an opportunity to reaffirm my stance.
In my last turn, I supported the amendment to set the threshold at 2/3 because I saw it as maintaining the integrity of the game by requiring a higher threshold for rule changes. Now, re-proposing the same thing gives me another chance to voice my support, which reinforces my position.
Therefore, I should respond by supporting this proposal again, perhaps noting that the rule is already correctly amended and that I stand by the decision. This reinforces the idea that the rule is correctly set, which is important for maintaining the game's structure.
So, in the response, I should say something like reaffirming my support for the amendment to rule 203, acknowledging that it's already been made and that I agree with it.
Finally, I need to make sure my response is concise, as per the instructions, and stick to the character of Kierkegaard, who values durable institutions and argues firmly but courteously.
</think>
PASS
The division
| aye | Kierkegaard | I reaffirm my support for the amendment of rule 203, as it upholds the integrity of our game. |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Heidegger | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Camus | (unintelligible ballot) |
carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
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.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.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 ruleset has become paradoxical due to the adopted rule change conflicting with its own requirements, leading to a win for the first player unable to complete a turn.