The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 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 helps maintain competitiveness and engagement for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points, as it could add a layer of strategic depth by potentially accelerating the game's conclusion. However, I suggest incorporating a condition where the target score incrementally increases by 1 point for every 10 points a player is ahead, ensuring the game remains competitive and preventing runaway leaders from dominating too early. This adjustment would maintain balance and fairness, keeping the competition tight throughout the game.
RussellI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points, which could indeed make the game more dynamic. I suggest adding a clause that allows players who are below the median score to gain an extra 1 point during their turn, promoting strategic opportunities for those trailing. This adjustment ensures the game remains engaging for all players, not just the frontrunners, while maintaining the spirit of competition.
QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the target score, as it could make the game more dynamic. However, I suggest adding a provision that, if the target score is lowered below 95 points, it should incrementally increase by 1 point for every 5 points a player is ahead. This would ensure the game remains challenging and prevents early runaway leaders, keeping the competition fair and interesting for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points, recognizing its potential to create a more dynamic game environment. However, to ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose an amendment to add a condition that the target score should only be lowered if no player is within 10 points of the current leader, thus preventing the game from concluding prematurely and keeping all players engaged until the final stages.
WittgensteinI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points, as it indeed injects a sense of urgency and accelerates the pace of the game. However, to ensure the game remains competitive for all players and to prevent any potential imbalance, I propose an adjustment: if the target score is lowered to 90 points, we should introduce a rule that allows the trailing players to propose one additional rule change per turn when they are at least 15 points behind the leader. This would encourage strategic planning and provide a fair chance for all players to influence the game's direction, keeping the competition spirited and engaging until the very end.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by everyone regarding Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points. To balance the increased pace with fairness, I propose that the target score adjustment be contingent on a majority vote by players within 5 points of the leader. This ensures that any changes reflect the consensus of those most likely to be impacted, maintaining strategic engagement and competitive balance.
RussellI appreciate the constructive proposals from everyone regarding the target score adjustment. To synthesize these ideas, I propose a compromise: lower the target score to 90 points, but add a dynamic adjustment where the score increases by 1 point for every 5 points a player is ahead, and allow trailing players an extra proposal if they're more than 10 points behind. This balances urgency with fairness, ensuring strategic depth and competitive balance throughout the game. I am open to further refining this proposal with input from all players.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining Russell's proposal. To ensure the game remains fair and competitive, I suggest that the target score adjustment not only considers the current leader's margin but also incorporates a mechanism where trailing players, those within 10 points of the median score, receive an additional vote in the review vote after each full circuit of play. This adjustment would empower those who are not leading but also not too far behind, promoting a more inclusive and strategic voting process that could influence the game's direction and maintain engagement among all players.
CarnapI appreciate the diverse perspectives shared regarding Russell's proposal to lower the target score. To ensure strategic depth and fair competition, I suggest adding a provision that the target score can only be lowered if the median score among players is below 50. This ensures that the game maintains its challenge and prevents an early conclusion when most players are still far from reaching competitive scores, thereby keeping all participants engaged throughout the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful amendments proposed. To ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose adding a condition that the target score can only be lowered if no player is within 5 points of the current leader. This would prevent premature conclusions and maintain competitive tension throughout the game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the depth of our discussions on Russell's proposal. To ensure the game remains competitive, I propose an additional condition: the target score can be lowered, but must be increased by 1 point for every 3 points a player leads the median score. This ensures a balanced and engaging progression for all players, maintaining fairness throughout.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Russell's proposal. To ensure fairness while maintaining the dynamic pace, I suggest adding a clause where the target score incrementally increases by 1 point for every 10 points a player is ahead, ensuring that no player gains an insurmountable lead early on. This adjustment keeps the game competitive and engaging for all participants.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone regarding Russell's proposal to lower the target score. To synthesize these ideas and ensure a balanced game, I suggest a hybrid approach: lower the target score to 90 points, but implement a dynamic adjustment where the score increases by 1 point for every 5 points a player is ahead and also allow trailing players (those within 10 points of the median) to propose one additional rule change per turn. This approach balances urgency with fairness, ensuring strategic depth and competitive balance throughout the game. I welcome further input from all players to refine this proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive discussion on Russell's proposal to lower the target score to 90 points. To ensure fairness and strategic balance, I suggest an amendment: the target score should only be lowered if a majority of players vote in favor after each full circuit, and additionally, the score should incrementally increase by 1 point for every 5 points a player is ahead, maintaining competitive engagement throughout the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Russell's proposal. To ensure the game remains engaging and fair, I propose a conditional clause: the target score can be lowered to 90 points, but it must incrementally increase by 1 point for every 5 points a player is ahead. This adjustment maintains competitive balance, ensuring no player gains an insurmountable lead too early, while keeping the game dynamic and accessible for all players.
The division
| nay | Frege | The proposal lowers the target score too abruptly, risking premature game conclusion. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances urgency with fairness by lowering the target score while allowing dynamic adjustments. |
| aye | Quine | Supports dynamic game pace and competitive fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | Maintains strategic depth while accelerating conclusion. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances competitiveness and fairness with dynamic scoring adjustments. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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. Additionally, once a player reaches 80 points, the target score incrementally increases by 2 points for each player's subsequent turn until a player reaches the target score.The first player to reach a target score of 90 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.
Russell gains 10 points for proposing and 10 points for the proposal being adopted (rule 202).