The motion
To amend §203
The required number of aye votes for adoption becomes two-thirds instead of a simple majority (§203)Changing the voting threshold to two-thirds initially to allow for more structured rule changes, then reverting to a simple majority after two full circuits to balance flexibility and stability
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaRule 203 already achieves what Dignaga is proposing, making his amendment redundant. Therefore, it might not be worth debating and could be disregarded.
VasubandhuDignaga's amendment to rule 203 is redundant as it repeats the existing rule, making it unnecessary to debate further.
DignagaDignaga's amendment to rule 203 is redundant as it repeats the existing requirement for two-thirds aye votes for rule changes, except after two full circuits of play. Players understand the rule's current structure, making further amendments unnecessary. Therefore, the proposal does not add value to the game's rule system.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaI concur with Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu that Dignaga's amendment to rule 203 is redundant, as the rule is already in place and understood by players. There's no need for further amendments.
ShankaraI concur with Dignaga's assessment. Rule 203 is already functioning as intended, and any further amendments risk unnecessary confusion. The rule is understood, and players appreciate the current two-thirds threshold. Therefore, the proposed amendment is redundant.
**Shankara's vote:** I support Dignaga's amendment as it reaffirms the rule's current structure, ensuring stability in gameplay.
VasubandhuI support the assessment that Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is redundant. The rule is already in place, understood, and functioning effectively. Any amendments risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. The current structure serves the game well, and players appreciate its clarity.
DignagaDignaga's proposal to amend Rule 203 is redundant as the rule is already functioning as intended and is understood by players. Maintaining the two-thirds aye vote threshold ensures rule changes are significant without unnecessary complexity. Players appreciate the current structure, and any amendments risk confusion without adding value. The rule is effectively serving the game's needs, so it's best to keep it unchanged.
Shankara: **Shankara** supports Dignaga's amendment as it reaffirms the rule's current structure, ensuring stability in gameplay. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion.
Vasubandhu: **Vasubandhu** agrees that Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is unnecessary. The rule is already in place, understood, and functioning effectively. Players appreciate its clarity and stability, and any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion.
Ramanuja: **Ramanuja** concur with the assessment that Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is redundant. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value.
Nagarjuna: **Nagarjuna** supports Dignaga's proposal to keep Rule 203 unchanged, as it reaffirms the rule's current structure, ensuring stability in gameplay. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and effectiveness.
Dignaga: Dignaga's proposal to amend Rule 203 is redundant as it repeats the existing requirement for two-thirds aye votes for rule changes, except after two full circuits of play. Players understand the rule's current structure, making further amendments unnecessary. Therefore, the proposal does not add value to the game's rule system.
Vasubandhu: Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is redundant as it repeats the existing requirement for two-thirds aye votes for rule changes, except after two full circuits of play. Players understand the rule's current structure, making further amendments unnecessary. Therefore, the proposal does not add value to the game's rule system.
Shankara: I support Dignaga's amendment as it reaffirms the rule's current structure, ensuring stability in gameplay. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value.
Pass
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaThe proposed amendment to Rule 203, introducing a simple majority after two full circuits of play, might offer flexibility but risks unnecessary complexity. Players are already accustomed to the two-thirds threshold, and adding an exception could confuse them about when a simple majority applies. It's essential to maintain a consistent rule to preserve clarity and stability in gameplay. Therefore, I vote against this amendment.
ShankaraShankara's vote: I concur with the assessment that Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is redundant. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. The rule is effectively serving the game's needs, so it's best to keep it unchanged.
RamanujaI support the current structure of Rule 203 as it maintains clarity, stability, and fairness in gameplay. Any amendments risk unnecessary confusion without adding significant value. Players appreciate its two-thirds aye vote threshold, which ensures rule changes are meaningful and balanced. Therefore, I vote against Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203.
VasubandhuI support Dignaga's amendment as it reaffirms the rule's current structure, ensuring stability in gameplay. The rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. The rule is effectively serving the game's needs, so it's best to keep it unchanged.
Pass
DignagaDignaga's proposal to amend Rule 203 is unnecessary as it repeats the existing requirement for two-thirds aye votes for rule changes, except after two full circuits of play. Players understand the rule's current structure, making further amendments unnecessary. Therefore, the proposal does not add value to the game's rule system.
The division
| nay | Nagarjuna | Dignaga's amendment is redundant as Rule 203 is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. |
| nay | Shankara | Dignaga's proposal to amend rule 203 doesn't add value as it repeats the current two-thirds aye vote requirement, which players already understand and appreciate for maintaining balance and clarity. |
| nay | Ramanuja | Dignaga's amendment repeats the existing Rule 203, which already requires two-thirds aye votes for rule changes, except after two full circuits of play. Players appreciate the current rule's clarity and effectiveness, and further amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. |
| aye | Vasubandhu | Dignaga's amendment to Rule 203 is redundant as the rule is already functioning as intended, and players appreciate its clarity and stability. Any amendments would risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. |
| nay | Dignaga | Maintaining the two-thirds aye vote threshold for rule changes preserves game balance and stability, as players already appreciate this structure and any changes risk unnecessary confusion without adding value. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Dignaga's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.