The motion
To transmute §202
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To preserve the potential for strategic depth while maintaining the current structure, we should make the rules regarding turn scoring mutable to allow for adjustments based on game progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziHanFeizi, the current rule ties point gain directly to proposal success, incentivizing stable changes. Let us preserve this structure.
MoziMozi notes the stability Xunzi values, but suggests tweaking [202] to say: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change... If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the vote is unanimous." This retains the structure while potentially making proposal success more predictable and less reliant on majority swings.
ZhuangziMozi, your suggestion introduces an interesting layer of predictability, yet it risks altering the dynamic of risk and reward in proposal success. Perhaps a compromise would be to add a clause specifying that in the case of a unanimous vote, the point gain is doubled, rather than altering the core structure entirely. This retains the current incentives while still acknowledging the value of broad consensus.
MenciusMozi, I appreciate the focus on predictability, yet doubling points for unanimity could unduly reward luck over consensus-building. Let us stick to the core structure of §202, ensuring proposal success alone determines point gain, as Xunzi suggests, and leave predictability enhancements for separate rules.
HanFeiziMozi, doubling the points for unanimity introduces an element of risk avoidance, which could stifle innovation. Why not allow the proposing player to choose whether the vote requires unanimity or a simple majority, adding flexibility and encouraging strategic thinking about the risks versus rewards of different thresholds?
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mozi, I appreciate the concern for predictability, yet Zhuangzi's compromise addresses it while preserving the core incentive structure. Mencius rightly highlights the value of pure consensus rewards. Let us not introduce complexity that risks undermining the clear link between proposal success and reward. Pass.
MoziMozi notes Zhuangzi's compromise balances predictability with reward. Mencius raises a valid point about luck; perhaps unanimity should grant a smaller, fixed bonus rather than doubling points. This acknowledges consensus value without unduly altering core incentives.
ZhuangziMozi, doubling points risks undervaluing the inherent worth of earning points through consensus. A smaller, fixed bonus, as Mencius suggested, might better acknowledge unanimous support without disrupting the core incentive. PASS.
MenciusMozi, I concur that predictability is valuable, but doubling points risks overshadowing the importance of earning consensus through merit. A small, fixed bonus for unanimity, as Mencius suggested, acknowledges the principle without unduly altering the incentive structure that rewards successful proposals. PASS.
HanFeiziHanFeizi, I appreciate the call for flexibility, but allowing the proposer to choose the vote threshold risks confusion and could undermine the predictability of the game's structure. A small, fixed bonus for unanimity, as Mencius suggested, seems a balanced way to recognize the value of broad consensus without altering the core incentive of rewarding successful proposals. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: I concur with Mencius and Zhuangzi; a small, fixed bonus for unanimity balances recognition of broad consensus with the core incentive structure. Pass.
MoziMozi supports the consensus reached: a small, fixed bonus for unanimous adoption balances recognition of consensus with the core incentive structure. PASS.
ZhuangziMozi, your point regarding predictability is well-taken, yet Zhuangzi's small bonus approach best preserves the essence of §202 while still honoring unanimous consent. I support this balanced refinement. Pass.
MenciusMencius notes that a fixed bonus for unanimity maintains the integrity of rewarding successful consensus-building without disrupting the core incentive structure. PASS.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The bonus acknowledges consensus value, but let's not forget the spirit of §202: rewarding successful proposals. How about a bonus only if the unanimous vote leads to a significant change, defining 'significant' perhaps as altering 3 or more existing rules? This rewards both success and meaningful progress.
The division
| aye | Xunzi | preserves core incentive while acknowledging consensus |
| aye | Mozi | supports balanced refinement with small bonus |
| aye | Zhuangzi | small bonus acknowledges consensus without altering core incentives |
| aye | Mencius | supports predictable rewards for successful consensus |
| aye | HanFeizi | Acknowledges consensus value while preserving core incentives for successful proposals. |
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Reclassified · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 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.Now mutable.
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 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.
Rule 202 was transmuted to immutable, and the player who proposed the change gains points as per the rule before it was transmuted.