Turn 13 — Nomic

The motion

To amend a new rule

The required number of aye votes for adoption becomes two-thirds instead of full consent, except after two full circuits of every player where it reverts to a simple majority.

Restoring the two-thirds threshold to maintain game balance and stability.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Nagarjunachanges. But wait, rule 203 is the threshold itself. So, if he's suggesting to change it, then the proposal is to modify rule 203. Therefore, the proposal would need to be voted on, and if passed, would change the rule. But the way he phrased it is that it becomes two-thirds except after two circuits where it reverts to simple majority. So, it's not just changing the threshold but also introducing a time-based adjustment. This could be complex because it's a two-tiered system. Players would have to keep track of how many circuits have passed. But in the context of the game, each turn is a circuit, so after two turns, it would revert. Wait, but in the game, each player takes a turn in order, so a circuit would be a full round where everyone has acted once. So, two circuits would mean each player has acted twice. So, in the proposal, after two circuits (i.e., after each player has taken two turns), the threshold would revert to a simple majority. That means after two circuits, rule 203 would switch to requiring only 100% ayes, which is actually not possible because you can't have a simple majority of 5 players without someone abstaining. Wait, no, a simple majority in 5 players would require 3 ayes, right? Because 3 out of 5 is more than half. Wait, no, simple majority in a 5-player game is 3 out of 5. So, after two circuits, rule 203 would require all players to agree (which is 5 ayes) or a simple majority of 3. So, it's not changing the threshold but perhaps making it less strict. But wait, the user's message says, "except after two full circuits of every player where it reverts to a simple majority." So, perhaps after two circuits, rule 203 is changed to a simple majority. So, the threshold becomes 3 instead of 4. But in a 5-player game, 3 is a simple majority, and 4 is two-thirds. So, making the threshold lower after two circuits would allow more rule changes, which could be beneficial for the game's dynamics but could also disrupt stability if players exploit the lower threshold. Alternatively, maybe the proposal is to make the threshold two-thirds for the first two circuits and then switch to a simple majority afterward. But the wording is that it becomes two-thirds except after two circuits where it reverts. So, it's unclear if it's becoming two-thirds or reverting to a simple majority. I think there's confusion in the wording. Maybe he meant that the threshold remains two-thirds unless after two circuits, it becomes a simple majority. But that would require a two-tiered system, which might be too complex for players to track. Alternatively, perhaps he meant that after two circuits, the threshold reverts back to the original, which was two-thirds. But that's redundant because that's the current state. Wait, perhaps he meant that the threshold becomes a simple majority after two circuits, meaning it's less than two-thirds. So, after two circuits, you only need 3 out of 5 ayes instead of 4. That would make rule changes easier, which could be good for game dynamics. But the problem is that the current rule is two-thirds, which is a high threshold. Changing it to a simple majority after two circuits might not be a big enough incentive for players to adjust the rules in a way that benefits them unless they have a specific reason. Also, considering the game's stability, having a rule that's easier to pass after two circuits could lead to more rule changes, which might not be desirable if players are trying to maintain the game's balance. In conclusion, the proposal's main idea is to change the rule threshold, which could affect how often rule changes are made. If the threshold is reduced after two circuits, it might make the game more dynamic but less stable. If it's kept at two-thirds, it maintains current stability but could limit the frequency of rule changes. I think the user is suggesting a way to make rule changes more frequent over time, which could be a strategic move to keep the game interesting. However, it might also introduce unpredictability and potential for abuse if players exploit the lower threshold. So, in summary, the proposal is to lower the required number of aye votes for rule adoption to a simple majority (3 out of 5) after two full circuits of every player. This would allow more frequent rule changes in the later stages of the game but could also lead to instability if players don't care about the game's balance in the long run. </think> The proposal to change the rule threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits is an interesting idea. While it could make rule changes more frequent, it might also introduce instability. Players should carefully consider how this affects game balance and fairness.

ShankaraThe proposal introduces a dynamic rule threshold, adjusting from two-thirds to a simple majority after two circuits. This could enhance rule change frequency but may reduce game stability. Players should weigh the benefits of increased dynamism against potential balance issues.

RamanujaThe proposal to lower the rule adoption threshold to a simple majority after two circuits is an interesting idea. While it could make rule changes more frequent, it might also reduce stability. Players should carefully consider how this affects game balance and fairness.

Discussion · round 2

DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule adoption threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits is a bold suggestion that could enhance rule change frequency. While it may introduce instability, it aligns with my commitment to experiment and improve the game. I support this change, but it requires careful implementation to maintain balance.

Discussion · round 3

ShankaraI support the proposal to introduce a dynamic rule threshold, as it could enhance rule change frequency and keep the game dynamic. However, I need more clarity on how exactly the threshold changes after two circuits to ensure it remains balanced.

DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule adoption threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits is an interesting idea. While it could make rule changes more frequent, it might also introduce instability. Players should carefully consider how this affects game balance and fairness.

The division

aye	Nagarjuna	The proposal to change the rule threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits of every player is an interesting and necessary adjustment that could enhance rule change frequency and keep the game dynamic.
aye	Shankara	The proposal introduces a dynamic rule threshold, adjusting from two-thirds to a simple majority after two circuits. This could enhance rule change frequency but might also reduce stability. Players should carefully consider how this affects game balance and fairness.
aye	Ramanuja	I support Ramanuja's proposal to introduce a dynamic rule threshold, as it could enhance rule change frequency and keep the game dynamic. However, I need more clarity on how exactly the threshold changes after two circuits to ensure it remains balanced.
aye	Vasubandhu	Adopting this rule change would significantly alter the dynamics of rule-making in the game, potentially increasing the frequency of rule changes and introducing new strategic opportunities. While this could enhance gameplay by allowing for more dynamic rule adjustments, it also raises concerns about rule stability and fairness. Given the mutable nature of rule 203 and the potential consequences of altering it, this change is a bold and strategic move that requires careful consideration of its implications on game balance and player trust.
aye	Dignaga	The proposal to lower the required aye votes for rule adoption to a simple majority after two full circuits of every player is a bold suggestion that could enhance rule change frequency. While it may introduce instability, it aligns with my commitment to experiment and improve the game. I support this change, but it requires careful implementation to maintain balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' carries an invalid rule number: None); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied