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, with an additional point if the change increases the ruleset's mutability.Incentivizes rule changes that enhance adaptability and strategic depth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeThe amendment seeks to incentivize changes that enhance the ruleset's mutability, which could be seen as a slippery slope towards instability. We value durable institutions, and an excessive number of mutable rules might undermine the balance and predictability necessary for strategic play. I propose a compromise: instead of granting an additional point, let's offer a bonus point only if a rule change directly contributes to achieving the game's winning condition, such as lowering the target score or increasing point gains. This aligns incentives with the game's ultimate goal while preserving stability.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's concern about stability and the incentive structure. To build consensus, I suggest we amend the proposal to offer a bonus point if the rule change contributes to either increasing mutability or achieving the winning condition, whichever is more beneficial to the game's strategic depth. This dual incentive balances the need for adaptability with strategic progression, ensuring changes align with both immediate and long-term goals. Let's discuss if this refinement can gather broader support.
QuineQuine: I see the merit in Frege's and Russell's proposals to balance incentives with stability. Let's refine this further to ensure the bonus point is awarded only when the rule change demonstrably enhances strategic possibilities or player agency within the game. This way, we encourage thoughtful rule changes that align with the spirit of Nomic while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset.
CarnapCarnap: I support the proposal with the dual incentive structure, as it aligns with our principled proceduralist approach by incentivizing rule changes that contribute to both strategic depth and the game's winning condition. This ensures changes are meaningful and beneficial, maintaining the integrity of the ruleset while encouraging thoughtful adaptation.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: Frege, Russell, and Quine raise important points about stability and strategic depth. I support a refined proposal where a bonus point is granted if a rule change demonstrably enhances player agency or strategic depth, with clear criteria to prevent abuse. This aligns with our goal of evolving the game while maintaining its integrity. Let's work together to ensure this proposal is clear and fair to all players.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal. To address potential concerns about abuse, let's specify that a rule change must be unanimously approved by all players to qualify for the bonus point. This ensures that only changes widely recognized as beneficial are incentivized, preserving the integrity of our ruleset while fostering strategic innovation.
RussellI support Frege's latest refinement. By requiring unanimous approval for the bonus point, we ensure that any rule change rewarded is truly seen as beneficial by all players. This approach maintains the integrity of our evolving ruleset while encouraging meaningful and strategic changes.
QuineWittgenstein, I agree with Frege's latest refinement. Requiring unanimous approval for the bonus point ensures that rule changes are thoroughly vetted and widely supported, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and strategic game. Let's proceed with this proposal, confident that it balances innovation with integrity.
CarnapI support the proposal with the unanimous approval requirement for the bonus point. This ensures that any rule change rewarded is widely recognized as beneficial, aligning with our principled proceduralist approach and maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussion and refinements thus far. Requiring unanimous approval for the bonus point is a strong safeguard against potential abuses and ensures that any rewarded changes truly enhance strategic depth and player agency. However, let's add a clause that allows players to propose a review of the rule change's impact after a set number of turns, ensuring it continues to align with our strategic goals. This additional layer of accountability will help maintain the integrity and adaptability of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI support Wittgenstein's addition of a review clause after a set number of turns. This ensures that rule changes remain aligned with our strategic goals and maintains the integrity of our evolving ruleset, while still incentivizing thoughtful innovation.
RussellI support Wittgenstein's proposal to include a review clause, as it adds a layer of accountability and ensures that rule changes continue to align with our strategic goals over time. This approach maintains the integrity of our ruleset while encouraging thoughtful and beneficial innovations. Let's move forward with this proposal, confident that it balances innovation with long-term strategic depth.
QuineI support the proposal with the unanimous approval requirement and the review clause. The addition of a review ensures that rule changes are continually assessed for their strategic impact, maintaining the balance between innovation and stability. This thoughtful structure encourages beneficial changes while safeguarding against potential negative consequences. Let's move forward with this refined proposal, confident in its potential to enhance our game.
CarnapI support the proposal with its current refinements, including the unanimous approval requirement and the review clause. These additions ensure that the rule changes we incentivize are not only immediately beneficial but continue to serve the strategic goals of our game over time. This thoughtful structure aligns with our principled proceduralist approach, promoting meaningful innovation while maintaining the integrity of our evolving ruleset.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus around the proposal's current form, emphasizing both stability and strategic depth. The unanimous approval requirement and the review clause are excellent safeguards, ensuring that rule changes are thoroughly vetted and remain aligned with our goals. This proposal strikes a balance between innovation and integrity, and I support it as it stands. Let's proceed with this well-considered amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal balances innovation with stability and strategic depth. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances stability with strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances innovation with strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances innovation with integrity and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This incentivizes beneficial rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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, with an additional point if the change increases the ruleset's mutability.
Frege gains 7 points: 6 from the die roll and 1 additional point for increasing mutability.