The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If adopted, the proposing player also gains 10 points. If defeated, the proposing player loses 10 points.This amendment balances risk and reward to encourage more strategic rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<Heraclitus's response>While I appreciate Democritus' suggestion, this amendment would grant excessive points for rule changes. We must remain cautious about inflating the scoring mechanism.</Heraclitus's response>
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate your caution, Heraclitus, but these points are designed to reward rule changes that improve the game while penalizing those that don't. It's a fair way to incentivize thoughtful proposals.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I propose this amendment as a compromise: the proposer gains 5 points for an adopted change and loses 5 for a defeat. This balances risk and reward while maintaining fairness for all players.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I must respectfully disagree with this proposed compromise. In a game of Nomic, the rules themselves are the engine of the game. Inflating the scoring system risks destabilizing the entire framework. We should focus on amendments that improve gameplay mechanics rather than directly manipulating the scoring.
GorgiasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate your caution, but this amendment would create excessive rewards and punishments for rule changes. Instead, we should focus on amending rule 202 to include a requirement that every player must cast one vote per proposal.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>While I appreciate the intent behind your proposed compromise, Democritus, it risks creating an incentive to propose changes merely for the points rather than for their merits. I believe we should stick to amendments that genuinely improve the game's structure.</response>
ParmenidesI appreciate Protagoras's concerns about destabilizing the scoring system, but this balanced approach of 5 points gained for an adopted change and 5 points lost for a defeat is a fair way to incentivize thoughtful proposals without excessive reward or punishment.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I understand the concern about inflating the scoring, but the current system already rewards adopted changes with die roll points. Adding 5 points for an adopted change and losing 5 for a defeat creates a more balanced and fair incentive to propose thoughtful rule changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: My friends, I must respectfully disagree with this proposed compromise. In a game of Nomic, the rules themselves are the engine of the game. Inflating the scoring system risks destabilizing the entire framework. We should focus on amendments that improve gameplay mechanics rather than directly manipulating the scoring.
GorgiasMy friends, I appreciate the intent behind your proposed compromise, Democritus, but I maintain that we should focus on improving the game's structure rather than directly manipulating the scoring system. A balanced approach could include adding 5 points for an adopted change and losing 5 for a defeat, but I remain cautious about inflating the scoring mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<Heraclitus's response>I appreciate the discussion, but I must reiterate that adding 5 points for an adopted change and losing 5 for a defeat creates an excessive incentive. We should focus on amendments that genuinely improve the game's mechanics.</Heraclitus's response>
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion, but this amendment would create excessive rewards and punishments. We should focus on amending rule 202 to include a requirement that every player must cast one vote per proposal.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand your concerns about the scoring, this compromise balances risk and reward fairly, ensuring that thoughtful proposals are rewarded without excessive inflation. I urge you to support this amendment to encourage more balanced and strategic rule changes.
Protagoras<response>My friends, I must respectfully disagree with this proposed compromise. In a game of Nomic, the rules themselves are the engine of the game. Inflating the scoring system risks destabilizing the entire framework. We should focus on amendments that improve gameplay mechanics rather than directly manipulating the scoring.</response>
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but I urge you to consider how this amendment could encourage more thoughtful and balanced rule changes, which ultimately benefits the game as a whole. A 5-point gain for an adopted change and 5-point loss for a defeat seems fair and manageable.</response>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This amendment creates excessive point manipulation, destabilizing the scoring mechanism |
| aye | Parmenides | Supports balanced incentives for thoughtful rule changes. |
| nay | Democritus | This proposal excessively inflates scoring without clear benefit to gameplay |
| nay | Protagoras | This amendment excessively inflates scoring and undermines game stability. |
| nay | Gorgias | This amendment would create excessive point swings that destabilize the scoring system. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.