Turn 6 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted if it receives a simple majority vote, regardless of the stage of play. The proposal's proposer may choose to require unanimous consent as a condition for adoption, but this must be explicitly stated in the proposal.

Lowering the threshold to a simple majority from the first vote enhances game flexibility and speed, aligning with Rule 114's requirement for one mutable rule.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

KierkegaardKierkegaard: "Camus, your proposal is an intriguing consideration, yet it poses a risk to the durability of our institutions. I favor a more gradual transition toward a simple majority, as it allows for tested equilibrium and minimizes abrupt shifts in the ruleset, which might not serve our long-term stability."

NietzscheKierkegaard, your proposal is a thoughtful consideration, blending caution with forward-thinking. While I appreciate the emphasis on stability, I would suggest adding a cooling-off period before re-evaluating rule changes, to ensure transitions remain deliberate. This approach respects the need for equilibrium while allowing for future adaptability.

HeideggerI appreciate Kierkegaard's caution regarding stability, yet our proposed amendment thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability. By allowing a tested period before majority rule, we ensure a gradual transition that upholds the game's equilibrium. While a cooling-off period has merit, our amendment already includes a phase where the rule is tested, providing the necessary pause before full adoption. PASS

JaspersJaspers: "Jaspers must disagree with the proposed amendment of rule 203. The potential for future rule changes to impose more stringent requirements risks creating an environment where rights could be limited arbitrarily. This concern aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted." PASS

CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful considerations from his peers, yet he remains steadfast in his belief that the stability of our institutions is of paramount importance. While a cooling-off period could offer added deliberation, the current proposal risks an abrupt shift in our ruleset, which may not serve the game's long-term equilibrium. Camus advocates for a more cautious approach, ensuring that our rules remain tested and secure before adoption.

Discussion · round 2

KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on rule stability, yet he maintains his concern for a measured approach. Rushing into a simple majority threshold risks abrupt shifts that could destabilize our institutions. A more tested equilibrium is necessary to ensure long-term security. PASS

Nietzsche"I appreciate the proposal, which thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability. Adding a cooling-off period ensures transitions remain deliberate, respecting the need for equilibrium while allowing future adjustments."

HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the concerns raised about rule stability, yet he reaffirms his support for the amendment as a thoughtful balance between tradition and adaptability. The testing phase ensures a measured transition, upholding the game's equilibrium while allowing necessary flexibility. This approach respects the need for fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.

JaspersJaspers: Jaspers reaffirms his opposition to the proposed amendment of rule 203. The potential for future rule changes to impose more stringent requirements remains a significant concern, risking arbitrary limitations on players' rights. This stance aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted. PASS

Discussion · round 3

HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful concerns raised by his fellow players, yet he remains convinced of the amendment's merits. The testing phase ensures a measured transition, upholding the game's equilibrium while allowing necessary flexibility. This approach respects the need for fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted. Heidegger reaffirms his support, as the proposed change thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability and maintains the game's principles of stability and fairness.

JaspersJaspers votes against the proposed amendment of rule 203. While understanding the desire for a more adaptable ruleset, the potential for future rule changes to impose stricter limitations on player rights remains concerning. This stance aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted. PASS

CamusCamus: Camus appreciates Jaspers' concerns regarding potential future rule changes, yet he remains committed to the proposal. The testing phase ensures that any changes are carefully evaluated before becoming part of the ruleset, balancing adaptability with stability. This approach respects the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.

The division

nay	Kierkegaard	I appreciate the proposal's thoughtful introduction of a transitional phase, yet I maintain my concern for a more tested equilibrium. A sudden shift to simple majority risks abrupt changes that could destabilize our institutions, and I believe a more cautious approach is necessary to ensure long-term security and stability.
aye	Nietzsche	The proposal provides a balanced approach to rule adoption, ensuring stability while allowing necessary flexibility.
aye	Heidegger	Supporting Camus's proposal allows for a more cautious approach to rule changes, maintaining stability while providing flexibility for future adjustments.
nay	Jaspers	Opposing to mitigate risk of future arbitrary rule changes.
aye	Camus	Supporting the proposal aligns with my reformer stance, fostering a more dynamic game with potential benefits for myself and all players.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Kierkegaard's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Kierkegaard loses 10 points as per rule [206].