The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.To ensure thoughtful deliberation, proposals should be reviewed in advance, enhancing strategic depth and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's intention to refine our proposal process, but introducing a review committee may slow down the game and dilute our focus on strategic rule changes. Instead, let's keep proposals submitted at the beginning of a turn, ensuring everyone can respond swiftly and efficiently. This maintains the dynamic nature of Nomic while still allowing for thoughtful consideration.
RussellI see the value in both maintaining the pace of the game and ensuring thorough consideration of proposals. Russell, perhaps we can refine your suggestion by allowing the committee to provide non-binding feedback instead of formal review, keeping the process agile yet informed. This way, we can preserve the dynamism of Nomic while still encouraging thoughtful contributions. Let's aim for a proposal that balances both perspectives.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's points. Quine: To strike a balance, let's propose that the committee offers feedback within a limited time frame, say 24 game turns, ensuring it doesn't slow us down. This maintains the game's pace while still allowing for input on complex proposals.
CarnapCarnap: I concur with Quine's suggestion to set a time limit for feedback. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, let's specify that feedback from the committee must be non-binding and advisory, thus preserving the proposer's autonomy. This approach aligns with our principles of precise procedures and respects the spirit of dynamic engagement in Nomic.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Carnap's emphasis on non-binding feedback, which aligns with our goal of maintaining fairness and autonomy. Let's also include a clause that allows for immediate voting if the committee's feedback is delayed, ensuring no unnecessary hindrance to the flow of the game. This balanced approach keeps the game dynamic while allowing thoughtful input.
Discussion · round 2
FregeThank you, Wittgenstein, for a thoughtful synthesis. To ensure clarity and avoid potential delays, let's specify a mechanism for expedited voting if the committee exceeds the 24-turn feedback window. This safeguard preserves the game's dynamic nature while respecting the committee's advisory role. We might also consider adding a small point incentive for proposals that receive favorable non-binding feedback from the committee, rewarding quality without compromising autonomy.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the contributions from everyone. To further refine the proposal, let's add a provision for a "fast-track" option. If a proposal receives no feedback from the committee within the 24-turn period, it automatically moves to a vote. Additionally, let's introduce a minor point bonus, say 1 point, for proposals that incorporate feedback from the committee, incentivizing thoughtful integration while keeping the game's pace. This way, we balance thorough consideration with efficiency, ensuring a dynamic and engaging experience for all players.
QuineQuine: I support the fast-track option as a practical solution to prevent delays, ensuring that the game's pace remains lively. Additionally, the 1-point bonus for integrating committee feedback is a clever way to encourage quality proposals while respecting each player's autonomy. This balanced approach aligns with our goal of fostering both strategic depth and dynamic engagement.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Russell's "fast-track" and feedback incentive ideas, which align well with our principles. Let's ensure the committee's composition is clear and rotating to avoid bias, further enhancing fairness and transparency while maintaining the dynamic essence of Nomic.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's emphasis on a rotating committee to ensure fairness and avoid bias. Let's also specify that the committee must include at least one player who hasn't served in the last three turns, fostering diverse perspectives and preventing entrenchment. This approach maintains fairness and dynamism while encouraging a broad range of insights into each proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: Thank you, Wittgenstein, for highlighting the need for diversity in the committee. To enhance transparency and ensure impartiality, let's also include a rule where committee members must publicly disclose any potential conflicts of interest before reviewing a proposal. This reinforces our commitment to fair play and maintains trust among all players.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful discussions thus far, especially the emphasis on maintaining both dynamism and fairness. Russell: To ensure the committee remains impartial and effective, let's add a requirement that proposals submitted by current committee members must be reviewed by an independent third-party player from outside the committee. This safeguard will prevent potential conflicts of interest and ensure all proposals are considered on their merit, aligning with our principles of transparency and fair play.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements so far. Quine: To further enhance the integrity of our process, let's specify that the independent third-party reviewer must be selected by a random draw from eligible players who haven't participated in the current turn's voting. This ensures impartiality and maintains the game's dynamic nature by involving a wider pool of players in the decision-making process.
CarnapCarnap: I commend the proposal's evolution toward balancing thorough consideration and dynamism. To ensure procedural clarity, I propose that the independent third-party reviewer's selection process be detailed in an appendix to the rule, specifying eligibility criteria and the random draw method. This precision aligns with our principles of clear and fair procedures.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion for procedural clarity. Let's ensure the random draw process is transparent by requiring the selection to be conducted publicly during the game, allowing all players to witness and verify the fairness of the process. This transparency reinforces trust and maintains the integrity of our dynamic system.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances thorough review with maintaining game pace. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances strategic depth with game dynamism. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances thorough consideration with efficient gameplay. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances thorough consideration and dynamic engagement with clear procedures. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment balances thorough review with dynamic engagement, ensuring fairness and strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Russell gains 5 points, but no rule specifies awarding points on adoption.