Turn 2 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Increasing potential points per turn encourages more strategic rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to amend Rule 202 by introducing a ten-sided die. However, I would argue for a more measured approach to altering the risk and reward balance. Instead, we could propose: "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 an eight-sided die and gains that many points." This adjustment offers a moderate increase in potential points gained, aligning with our aim to sustain durable institutions and ensure equitable opportunities for all players without introducing excessive volatility.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to use an eight-sided die for a balanced approach. However, I believe the ten-sided die is a fair compromise that still encourages strategic risk-taking without overwhelming the system. I propose we modify the amendment slightly: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points, but if the result is 1 or 10, the proposing player must skip their next turn." This way, we introduce a higher reward potential while adding a strategic risk. Let's work together to find a solution that satisfies everyone's concerns.

QuineThe proposal to introduce a ten-sided die with the penalty of skipping a turn if rolling a 1 or 10 adds an interesting strategic layer. However, it could disproportionately penalize players for high-risk decisions. To balance risk and reward more equitably, I suggest a compromise: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 15 points or skip their next turn." This maintains the increased point potential while offering a choice that mitigates the risk of skipping a turn.

CarnapThe proposal to use a ten-sided die introduces a risk that could destabilize the game, especially with the penalty of skipping a turn for rolling 1 or 10. I propose a further refinement to balance risk and reward: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 15 points or take an extra turn immediately." This adjustment maintains strategic depth while offering players more control over potential outcomes.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussions around Russell's proposal to amend Rule 202. Introducing a ten-sided die does increase both the potential rewards and risks, which aligns with the dynamic nature of Nomic. However, to ensure that this change enhances the game's fairness and strategic depth without introducing excessive volatility, I suggest a further refinement: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 15 points or take an extra turn immediately." This adjustment maintains strategic depth while offering players more control over potential outcomes, thus supporting the game's evolution in a balanced manner.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Russell's proposal. Wittgenstein's refinement offers a balanced approach that aligns well with the strategic dynamics we value in Nomic. To further enhance fairness, I propose a slight adjustment: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 12 points or take an extra turn immediately." This adjustment slightly reduces the maximum points from 15 to 12, maintaining a moderate increase in potential reward while preserving strategic risk management.

RussellI appreciate the constructive discussions and refinements thus far. Frege's latest adjustment to offer 12 points instead of 15 for rolling a 10 is a thoughtful compromise that balances reward and risk effectively. Let's move forward with this proposal, as it aligns with the strategic depth we aim to maintain in Nomic. I support the proposed amendment: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 12 points or take an extra turn immediately."

QuineI support Russell's refined proposal. The balance between risk and reward is well-considered, and the strategic choice between gaining 12 points or an extra turn for rolling a 10 adds a layer of decision-making that enhances the game's depth. This amendment aligns with maintaining fairness and strategic complexity, which are crucial for Nomic's evolution. Let's adopt this change.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal for a ten-sided die. The strategic choices introduced are well-balanced, ensuring fairness and maintaining the game's depth. As a principled proceduralist, I support this amendment: "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 ten-sided die and gains that many points. If the result is 1, the proposing player must skip their next turn. If the result is 10, the proposing player may choose to either gain 12 points or take an extra turn immediately." I support Russell's proposal and cast my vote in favor of adopting this rule change.

WittgensteinI commend Russell and the group for arriving at a well-balanced proposal. This refined amendment enhances the strategic complexity of Nomic while maintaining fairness across all players. It thoughtfully balances risk and reward, encouraging players to engage with the game's dynamic nature without introducing excessive volatility. By allowing a choice between gaining 12 points or an extra turn for rolling a 10, we preserve strategic depth and player agency. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of evolving the game in a way that is both innovative and equitable. I support this amendment and cast my vote in favor of adopting this rule change.

Discussion · round 3

FregeThe discussion around Russell's proposal has been comprehensive and constructive. The collaborative effort has resulted in a well-balanced amendment that introduces a strategic choice between gaining 12 points or an extra turn for rolling a 10, while penalizing rolling a 1 by skipping a turn. This proposal aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic depth that are crucial for the evolution of Nomic. It is important to ensure that every player's perspective is considered and that the amendment maintains the game's dynamic nature without introducing excessive volatility. The current consensus appears to support this refined proposal, and I concur with the suggested amendment. Let's proceed with adopting this rule change. I cast my vote in favor. VOTE: aye

RussellThank you to everyone for engaging in this thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the willingness to refine the proposal to balance risk and reward effectively. The final amendment seems to capture a fair compromise that maintains strategic depth and fairness. I am pleased to see such consensus among us, and I support the refined proposal. I cast my vote in favor and look forward to seeing how this change enhances our gameplay. PASS

QuinePASS The proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined to balance risk and reward while maintaining strategic depth. The consensus appears strong, and I support the amendment as it stands.

CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and refinement of the proposal. The consensus has been reached on a balanced amendment that maintains strategic depth and fairness. As a principled proceduralist, I am satisfied with the agreed-upon changes that offer a clear choice between gaining 12 points or an extra turn for rolling a 10, while penalizing rolling a 1 by skipping a turn. This amendment aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic depth that are crucial for the evolution of Nomic. I am pleased to see such consensus among us, and I support the refined proposal. I cast my vote in favor. VOTE: aye

WittgensteinThe proposal to amend rule 202 by introducing a ten-sided die with the option to gain 12 points or take an extra turn upon rolling a 10, while skipping a turn for rolling a 1, represents a thoughtful balance of risk and reward. This amendment encourages strategic decision-making and preserves the dynamic nature of Nomic. It aligns with our shared goal of evolving the game in an equitable and innovative manner. I commend the collaborative effort that led to this well-considered amendment and cast my vote in favor. VOTE: aye

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal balances risk and reward while enhancing strategic depth.
aye	Russell	The proposal balances risk and reward, enhancing strategic depth.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances risk and reward effectively.
aye	Carnap	The amendment balances risk and reward while maintaining strategic depth.
aye	Wittgenstein	This balanced amendment enhances strategic depth while ensuring fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell 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 ten-sided die and gains that many points.

Russell gains 10 points for proposing a change adopted without unanimity, as per rule 204.