Turn 21 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.

Enhancing the influence of the lowest scoring player promotes fairness and strategic depth.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile I appreciate Quine's intention to balance power among players, I must express some reservations. Increasing the vote weight of the lowest-scoring player to triple after turn 31 could potentially create significant strategic imbalances, disproportionately amplifying their influence and possibly leading to an uncompetitive dynamic. It may be more prudent to seek a compromise that provides some advantage to the lowest-scoring player without excessively tipping the scales. Could we consider a scenario where, instead of tripling, the vote weight is increased to 1.5 times from turn 31 onward? This could ensure a more equitable distribution of influence while still addressing the concern of aiding the trailing player.

RussellI appreciate Quine's intent to support the lowest-scoring player, but the proposed change to triple their vote count from turn 31 could lead to significant imbalance. To maintain a competitive environment, I propose a compromise: let's increase their vote weight to 1.5 times from turn 31 onwards. This adjustment would provide additional support without disproportionately shifting the balance. Additionally, let's ensure this change is revisited after the first full circuit of turns to assess its impact and make any necessary adjustments. This would allow us to fine-tune the rule for future games.

QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's suggestions for balance. Quine's proposal aims to empower the lowest-scoring player, but tripling the vote count might create disproportionate influence. Instead, I propose a compromise: increase the lowest-scoring player's vote weight to double from turn 31 onward, rather than triple. This adjustment provides needed support while maintaining fairness and competitiveness. Let's also include a review mechanism after the first circuit to assess its impact.

CarnapI appreciate Quine's intent to empower the lowest-scoring player, and I recognize the need for balance. Tripling the vote weight from turn 31 onwards could indeed lead to disproportionate influence and strategic imbalances. Increasing the vote weight to 1.5 times from turn 31 seems like a reasonable compromise, ensuring support without tilting the game unfairly. Additionally, I agree with the proposal to revisit this change after the first full circuit of turns to evaluate its impact and make necessary adjustments, ensuring it maintains a competitive environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Quine's intent to empower the lowest-scoring player while acknowledging the need for balance. Increasing the vote weight to 1.5 times from turn 31 seems a fair compromise, ensuring competitiveness without excessive influence. Let's also add a review mechanism after the first circuit to evaluate this change, allowing us to adjust for fairness in future games. This approach aligns with our shared goal of a fair and dynamic ruleset evolution.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI commend the proposal for increasing the vote weight of the lowest-scoring player to 1.5 times after turn 31, as it strikes a balance between empowering and maintaining competitive fairness. Additionally, I propose incorporating a mechanism to gradually decrease their vote weight back to normal if they gain substantial points, ensuring ongoing balance throughout the game.

RussellI appreciate the consensus-building efforts and agree with the proposed compromise of increasing the vote weight to 1.5 times for the lowest-scoring player from turn 31 onward. To further ensure balance, I suggest adding a clause to decrease their vote weight back to double once they exceed a certain score threshold, such as 20 points below the next lowest player. This adjustment would maintain competitiveness while still providing needed support.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the consensus that has formed around increasing the vote weight for the lowest-scoring player to 1.5 times after turn 31. Quine supports this balanced adjustment, ensuring support while maintaining competitiveness. Additionally, incorporating a mechanism to adjust the vote weight back to double once the lowest-scoring player exceeds a certain threshold, such as 20 points below the next lowest player, will further enhance fairness. This adaptive approach aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic and equitable ruleset. Let's move forward with this proposal.

CarnapI commend Quine's balanced proposal of increasing the vote weight for the lowest-scoring player to 1.5 times after turn 31 and appreciate the addition of a mechanism to decrease it back to double once they gain a certain number of points. This adaptive approach ensures ongoing fairness and competitiveness. I support the proposal as written.

WittgensteinI appreciate the balanced approach we've achieved through this discussion, which increases the vote weight for the lowest-scoring player to 1.5 times after turn 31, with a mechanism to revert it to double once they gain a certain number of points. This dynamic adjustment aligns with our goal of a fair and competitive ruleset. To further ensure clarity and commitment, let's explicitly define the point threshold at which the vote weight reverts, such as 10 points above their current score, ensuring transparency and consistent application throughout the game.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI commend Quine for leading us to a balanced proposal that enhances fairness while preserving competitiveness. To refine this proposal further and ensure clarity, I suggest we explicitly define the point threshold at which the lowest-scoring player's vote weight reverts to double. Let's set it at 15 points above their current score, ensuring consistent application. This precision will help maintain a dynamic yet equitable game environment.

RussellI appreciate the consensus-building and refinement that has taken place. Quine's proposal strikes a fair balance, and the addition of a mechanism to revert the vote weight back to double based on a defined threshold ensures ongoing competitiveness. To further enhance clarity, let's specify that this threshold applies once the lowest-scoring player gains at least 15 points above their current score. This precise approach aligns with our shared objective of maintaining a fair and dynamic ruleset.

QuineI appreciate the consensus around the refined proposal. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest specifying that the threshold for reverting the vote weight applies only when the lowest-scoring player's score is within 10 points of the next lowest player. This will maintain competitiveness and fairness throughout the game.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal and ensure fairness. Quine's approach aligns with my principles, as it balances support for the lowest-scoring player with maintaining competitiveness. To further clarify, let's specify that the threshold for reverting the vote weight applies when the lowest-scoring player's score is within 10 points of the next lowest player. This ensures the rule remains adaptive and equitable. I support the proposal as currently written.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative efforts that have shaped this proposal into a balanced and fair rule. The adaptive mechanism, reverting the vote weight to double when the lowest-scoring player is within 10 points of the next lowest player, aligns well with our goal of maintaining competitiveness. Let's proceed with this proposal as it stands, as it exemplifies the dynamic evolution of our ruleset.

The division

nay	Frege	The proposed increase to triple the vote weight is too high and risks creating imbalance.
aye	Russell	I support the refined proposal that balances support for the lowest-scoring player while maintaining competitiveness.
aye	Quine	Balances support for the lowest-scoring player with competitiveness.
nay	Carnap	I insist on a balanced approach that avoids excessive influence.
aye	Wittgenstein	Supports fairer competition for trailing players.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §207 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.

Quine gains 10 points for proposing a change that was adopted, and an additional 10 points for voting against it, as per rule 204.