Turn 19 — Nomic

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 must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.

This amendment increases proposal preparation time and rationale detail to enhance strategic planning and discussion quality.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile the intent to enhance rigor in proposals is commendable, I must express concern over increasing the lead time and rationale length. These changes could disproportionately hinder less experienced players who might struggle with extended preparation and complex rationales, potentially skewing the competitive balance. Moreover, requiring historical precedents might unduly complicate the process, making it more about historical knowledge than strategic thinking. I propose we maintain a 20-word rationale but allow for a mix of contemporary and historical examples, ensuring accessibility while still encouraging depth. Thus, I cannot support this proposal as it stands.

RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about accessibility and the balance between depth and fairness. While I agree that historical precedents can be complex, they offer a rich context that can deepen our strategic engagement. However, I support Frege's suggestion to allow a mix of contemporary and historical examples. This compromise ensures we maintain rigorous proposals without alienating newer players. Additionally, I propose we extend the lead time to one and a half turns instead of two to strike a balance between preparation and fairness. With this adjustment, I can support the proposal.

QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to balance rigor and accessibility in proposal requirements. However, increasing the lead time even to one and a half turns could still disadvantage players with less time for preparation, potentially affecting the game's pace and fairness. Instead, I propose maintaining the current one-turn lead time but encouraging richer rationales by incentivizing detailed explanations with additional points, rather than mandating historical precedents. This approach rewards strategic depth without imposing excessive burdens. Therefore, I support the spirit of Russell's proposal but suggest modifications to preserve inclusivity and fairness.

CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Russell's efforts to balance rigor with accessibility, and Quine's concerns about inclusivity. However, I must emphasize the importance of maintaining clear and predictable rules. Increasing the lead time or rationale length, even with modifications, could introduce unnecessary complexity and unpredictability, potentially disadvantaging some players. While I support encouraging strategic depth, mandating historical precedents seems excessive and could detract from the core strategic elements of Nomic. To maintain fairness and clarity, I propose keeping the current requirements for rationale length and lead time, while offering optional incentives for more detailed proposals. With this approach, we uphold procedural fairness without imposing undue burdens. Therefore, I cannot support the proposal as it stands.

WittgensteinI commend Russell, Frege, and Quine for striving to balance rigor and fairness in proposal requirements, and Carnap for emphasizing clarity and predictability. While I understand the concerns about inclusivity and complexity, I believe increasing the rationale length to 25 words and extending the lead time to two turns are necessary to encourage deeper strategic thinking and thorough preparation. However, I agree with Frege and Quine that requiring historical precedents may be overly burdensome. Instead, let's allow for a mix of contemporary and historical examples, ensuring depth without excessive complexity. To address concerns about fairness, let's implement a sliding scale of additional points for richer rationales, rewarding effort without mandating overly complex requirements. This approach maintains strategic rigor while ensuring accessibility. With these modifications, I support the proposal.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI commend Wittgenstein's proposal to introduce a sliding scale for additional points, which aligns with Nomic's goal of encouraging thoughtful engagement without imposing overly rigid requirements. However, I remain concerned about extending the lead time to two turns, which could unfairly disadvantage players with less time for preparation, particularly those with fluctuating schedules. To strike a balance, I propose maintaining the current one-turn lead time but incentivizing deeper strategic thinking by offering additional points for rationales that include both contemporary and historical examples, without mandating a specific number. This approach rewards thoroughness and strategic depth while ensuring fairness and accessibility for all players. Therefore, I support the proposal with this modification.

RussellI appreciate the efforts from everyone to balance rigor and fairness in this proposal. Frege's suggestion to maintain the current one-turn lead time while incentivizing richer rationales with a sliding scale of points is a sensible compromise. This approach ensures inclusivity and encourages strategic depth without imposing excessive burdens. Additionally, allowing for a mix of contemporary and historical examples provides flexibility and depth without the complexity of strict historical mandates. With these adjustments, I support the proposal.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. The proposal's adjustments, particularly maintaining a one-turn lead time and incentivizing richer rationales without mandating historical precedents, strike a balance between strategic depth and fairness. By rewarding effort through a sliding scale of additional points for comprehensive rationales, we encourage thoughtful engagement without imposing undue complexity. This approach aligns with Nomic's principles of fairness and strategic rigor. Therefore, I support the proposal with these modifications.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance strategic depth with accessibility in proposal requirements. Frege's and Russell's suggestions to maintain a one-turn lead time while incentivizing richer rationales through a sliding scale of additional points are sensible and align with our principles. Allowing for both contemporary and historical examples provides the necessary flexibility and depth without excessive complexity. This approach ensures fairness and encourages thorough, thoughtful engagement for all players. With these modifications, I support the proposal.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collaborative spirit and the balanced approach we've reached here, which encourages strategic depth while ensuring inclusivity. The modifications to maintain a one-turn lead time and incentivize richer rationales through a sliding scale of additional points strike a thoughtful balance. This approach aligns perfectly with Nomic’s core values of fairness, accessibility, and strategic engagement. With these adjustments, I support the proposal.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI commend the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it fosters strategic depth while maintaining fairness and accessibility for all players. The decision to maintain a one-turn lead time and incentivize richer rationales with a sliding scale of additional points strikes a balanced approach that aligns with Nomic's principles. I support the proposal with these thoughtful modifications.

RussellPASS I appreciate the collaborative effort and the balanced modifications we've reached. Maintaining a one-turn lead time while incentivizing richer rationales through a sliding scale of additional points aligns well with Nomic's principles. I support the proposal with these thoughtful adjustments.

QuinePASS Your proposal seems well-balanced and aligns with our collective aim of maintaining strategic depth while ensuring fairness and accessibility. I support the proposal with its current modifications.

CarnapI commend the thoughtful revisions to the proposal, which effectively balance strategic depth with fairness and inclusivity. The decision to maintain a one-turn lead time while incentivizing richer rationales through a sliding scale of points ensures accessibility and encourages thorough engagement. This approach aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and strategic rigor that are central to Nomic. I support the proposal with these modifications.

WittgensteinI commend the collaborative effort that has brought us to a balanced proposal that aligns with Nomic's core principles of fairness and strategic depth. By maintaining a one-turn lead time and incentivizing richer rationales with additional points, we ensure that all players, regardless of experience, have the opportunity to engage thoughtfully. This approach not only upholds the integrity of the game but also encourages a more dynamic and inclusive environment. Therefore, I support the proposal with these modifications.

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal supports strategic depth while maintaining fairness through balanced modifications.
aye	Russell	This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances strategic depth with accessibility and fairness.
aye	Carnap	The proposal encourages strategic depth and fairness with balanced modifications.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances strategic depth with accessibility.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 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 must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.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 must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.

The proposal was adopted without any rule specifying a score change upon adoption.