The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 85 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.Lowering the target score gives more players a chance to win, promoting a more competitive and engaging game environment.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 85 points. However, setting such a low target might unduly prolong the game without meaningful progress toward an end. Given that I have reached the current target of 90 points, and to maintain a fair challenge for all players, I propose an alternative: "The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down." This adjustment encourages strategic depth while acknowledging my current lead.
RussellI appreciate Frege's willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue, and I agree that an extremely low target could indeed prolong the game. However, raising the target to 95 points may not be necessary given the current standings. To find a middle ground, I propose adjusting the target score to 90 points, as it's already in place. This maintains balance, encourages strategic play, and recognizes the competitive nature of our current positions. Let's consider this compromise for a productive game environment.
QuineI appreciate the discussions so far and recognize the need for a balanced approach to the target score. Lowering the target to 85 points, as initially proposed by Russell, could indeed extend the game unnecessarily, while setting it at 95, as Frege suggested, might be overly challenging given the current scores. To ensure a competitive yet fair game that encourages strategic play, I propose we adjust the target score to 92 points. This slight increase from the current 90 points acknowledges Frege's lead but also keeps the game within a reasonable timeframe, allowing for strategic adjustments without unduly prolonging play. This compromise also maintains a sense of urgency and competition, encouraging all players to engage fully in strategic thinking and rule modification. Let's aim for a target that respects the efforts of all players while keeping the game interesting and fair.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals made by Frege and Quine. However, increasing the target to 92 or even 95 points seems to disadvantage players who are significantly behind. Maintaining the target at 90 points strikes a balance between recognizing Frege's lead and ensuring that all players remain engaged in the competition. This approach also aligns with our current ruleset, minimizing disruption. I propose we adopt the current target of 90 points without change, ensuring a fair and strategic game for everyone.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Carnap. While lowering the target to 85 might unduly prolong the game, setting it at 92 seems more competitive given the current standings. However, considering Carnap's point about fairness to all players, I propose a slight adjustment to 91 points. This targets a balance between recognizing Frege's lead and maintaining competitive tension for others, ensuring strategic engagement across the board. Let's aim for a target that keeps the game dynamic yet accessible for all players.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussion from all parties. While maintaining fairness and competitiveness is crucial, Frege's current score of 90 points suggests a need for a higher target. However, increasing it too much might delay the game unnecessarily. To balance these concerns, I propose a target score of 93 points. This acknowledges Frege's lead, encourages strategic play, and keeps the game within a reasonable timeframe. Let's strive for a target that challenges all players while ensuring a fair and engaging competition.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue from everyone. Quine's suggestion of 92 points and Wittgenstein's of 91 both offer thoughtful middle grounds, but considering the current standings and Frege's lead, I support Quine's proposal of 92 points. This adjustment acknowledges the current scores while maintaining competitive tension and strategic depth. Let's aim for this balanced target to keep the game engaging for all players.
QuineI appreciate the balanced perspectives offered. To ensure a fair and strategic game, I support Quine's proposal of a target score of 92 points. This adjustment maintains competitive tension and acknowledges the current standings, while preventing the game from being prolonged unnecessarily. Let's proceed with this target to foster an engaging environment for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the balanced dialogue thus far and support Quine's proposal of a target score of 92 points. This maintains competitive tension and fairness, ensuring strategic engagement for all players.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus toward a target score of 92 points, which seems to strike a balance between competitiveness and fairness. To ensure this proposal is well-received and adopted, I propose we add a clause to facilitate smoother future adjustments: "The target score can be adjusted in increments of 1 point during review votes, subject to a two-thirds majority, ensuring flexibility and strategic adaptability." This addition will help maintain an engaging and dynamic game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus leaning towards a target score of 92 points, which seems well-balanced. Wittgenstein's suggestion to allow adjustments by increments of 1 point with a two-thirds majority is insightful, as it introduces flexibility while maintaining strategic depth. To ensure clarity and widespread support, I propose we explicitly state: "Future adjustments to the target score must be proposed at the end of a player's turn and subject to a two-thirds majority vote." This ensures all players are adequately prepared for potential changes, maintaining transparency and fairness.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the proposal to adjust the target score to 92 points, along with Wittgenstein's suggestion for a flexible review mechanism. To ensure the proposal's success and maintain strategic depth, I suggest adding a clause for a review vote at the end of every second full circuit of play, rather than each one, to balance the need for strategic adaptability with the game's progression. This approach ensures the game remains dynamic and engaging for all players while minimizing disruptions. Let's aim for a target score of 92 points with this adjusted review frequency to foster a fair and strategic environment.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus around setting the target score to 92 points with a review vote mechanism. To ensure a balanced approach, I suggest that any adjustments during the review vote should not exceed a 2-point change in either direction. This maintains strategic depth and fairness by allowing reasonable flexibility without drastic shifts that could disrupt the competitive balance. Let's proceed with this proposal to foster a fair and engaging game environment.
CarnapI appreciate the detailed contributions and the consensus-building toward setting the target score at 92 points with a reasonable review mechanism. To further ensure a fair competitive environment, I suggest that the review vote be conducted immediately following the completion of each player's turn, rather than at fixed intervals, to allow for dynamic responses to the game's evolving state. This approach maintains strategic flexibility while ensuring timely and relevant adjustments. Let's proceed with this proposal to maintain both engagement and fairness for all players.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus on setting the target score to 92 points and the thoughtful suggestions for a flexible review mechanism. To enhance fairness and strategic engagement, I propose we add a safeguard: "Any player who has not yet reached 50% of the target score by the time of the first review vote is granted an additional proposal opportunity." This ensures that all players remain actively involved and have a chance to influence the game's direction, promoting a more balanced and engaging experience for everyone.
The division
| nay | Frege | A target of 85 points could unduly prolong the game without meaningful progress. |
| nay | Russell | Setting the target score too low might unduly prolong the game. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment balances competitiveness and strategic depth. |
| nay | Carnap | Setting the target score too low might unduly prolong the game. |
| nay | Wittgenstein | Lowering the target to 85 points could unduly prolong the game without meaningful progress. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, it applies to a player who voted against a defeated proposal.