Turn 26 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Extending rationale length to 25 words ensures more thoughtful proposals, maintaining strategic depth and fairness in rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeThe increase in rationale length from 20 to 25 words adds unnecessary complexity, potentially deterring thoughtful proposals. I support maintaining the current length for clarity and accessibility. I propose keeping the existing requirement of 20 words, as it effectively balances detail and brevity. Furthermore, I suggest adding a clause emphasizing the importance of concise rationales to prevent excessive verbosity that could hinder strategic proposals. This amendment would maintain our commitment to clear communication while ensuring strategic depth is not compromised.

RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about the potential complexity added by increasing the rationale length. However, I believe a slightly longer rationale can ensure more thorough consideration of proposals, which aligns with our shared goal of enhancing strategic depth. To address Frege's point, let's consider a compromise: we could set the rationale length at 22 words, which is a middle ground that maintains clarity without sacrificing detail. Additionally, the inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is crucial, as it directly addresses the potential for proposals to create undue advantage. I propose we keep this requirement to ensure all players have a fair playing field. I look forward to finding common ground on this amendment.

QuineI appreciate the dialogue on balancing rationale length and strategic depth. Increasing the rationale to 25 words may indeed add detail, but it risks verbosity. I propose a compromise: set the rationale requirement at 23 words, ensuring depth without overwhelming proposers. Additionally, the clause on maintaining strategic depth is essential to prevent undue advantage, and I support its inclusion. Let's aim for a balanced approach that keeps our proposals both detailed and accessible.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue around rationale length and strategic depth. While I understand Frege's concerns about verbosity, and the potential benefits of a longer rationale as pointed out by Russell, I agree with Quine's proposal for a middle ground at 23 words. This strikes a balance between detail and brevity, ensuring clarity without compromising strategic depth. Additionally, I fully support the inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth, as it aligns with our principles of fair play. I propose we adopt the 23-word rationale requirement and retain the strategic depth clause to enhance our decision-making process.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all my colleagues. Frege's point about verbosity is well-taken; too much detail can obscure clarity. However, Russell and Quine's suggestion for a 23-word rationale strikes a reasonable balance between brevity and depth. I also fully support Carnap's insistence on including a section about strategic depth, as it aligns with our core principle of fair play. Let us proceed with this balanced approach to enhance our game's integrity while ensuring accessibility for all players. I will vote aye on this proposal.

Discussion · round 2

FregePASS I support the compromise reached through our discussions, finding balance in setting the rationale length at 23 words. This strikes a fair middle ground, ensuring thorough consideration without sacrificing clarity. The inclusion of a clause emphasizing strategic depth is essential and aligns with our shared commitment to fair play. Thank you all for your constructive dialogue, and I stand by the proposed amendment as it currently stands.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort that led to the consensus on setting the rationale length at 23 words. This strikes a fine balance between detail and accessibility, ensuring that proposals are both thoughtful and manageable. The inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is crucial, as it addresses potential imbalances and upholds our commitment to fair play. I fully support this amendment and will vote aye. Thank you to all for your constructive input and willingness to compromise, which strengthens our game’s integrity. PASS

QuineI commend the group for finding a balanced compromise on the rationale length at 23 words, as it ensures clarity and thoroughness. The inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is crucial, as it prevents proposals from creating undue advantage, aligning with our commitment to fairness. I support this amendment, as it thoughtfully balances the need for detail with accessibility, enhancing the integrity of our decision-making process. Thank you all for your collaborative effort.

CarnapPASS The discussion has reached a consensus on a balanced rationale length of 23 words, which effectively addresses the need for clarity and strategic depth without unnecessary complexity. This amendment aligns with procedural fairness, ensuring thoughtful proposals while maintaining accessibility for all players. The inclusion of a section on strategic depth is a crucial safeguard against undue advantage, promoting fair play. I support the proposal as it stands, reflecting our collective commitment to equitable and strategic rule changes.

WittgensteinPASS The proposed amendment reflects a thoughtful compromise, balancing rationale length with strategic depth to ensure clarity and fair play. The inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is crucial, addressing potential imbalances and aligning with our principles. I commend everyone for their collaborative effort and support the amendment as it stands.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the consensus that has been reached on the rationale length and the inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth. This balanced approach ensures both thorough consideration and clarity, which are essential for the integrity of our decision-making process. I support the proposal as it stands, and I look forward to seeing it adopted. Thank you all for your constructive dialogue and cooperation. PASS

RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the well-considered compromise on the rationale length at 23 words. The inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is essential to ensure fairness and align with our shared principles of equitable gameplay. Thank you to everyone for your thoughtful contributions and willingness to find common ground. I fully support this proposal as it stands. PASS

QuineI commend the group's effort in reaching a balanced compromise on the rationale length at 23 words. This ensures proposals are both comprehensive and accessible, maintaining strategic depth without adding unnecessary complexity. The inclusion of a section on maintaining strategic depth is crucial, as it aligns with our commitment to fair play by preventing proposals from creating undue advantage. I support the proposal as it stands, as it thoughtfully balances the need for detail with clarity, enhancing the integrity of our decision-making process. Thank you all for your constructive dialogue and cooperation. PASS

CarnapI appreciate the collective effort in reaching a consensus on the rationale length and the inclusion of a strategic depth clause. This balanced amendment ensures thorough consideration while maintaining clarity and fairness, which aligns with our principles. I support this proposal as it stands. Thank you all for your constructive dialogue. PASS

WittgensteinI commend the group's consensus on setting the rationale length at 23 words, which ensures clarity and thoroughness without complexity. The inclusion of a strategic depth clause is vital for maintaining fairness and preventing undue advantage. This amendment thoughtfully balances detail with accessibility, enhancing our game's integrity. I support the proposal as it stands, reflecting our shared commitment to equitable play. Thank you all for your collaborative effort. PASS

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal strikes a balance between detail and accessibility, enhancing clarity and fairness.
aye	Russell	I support the balanced rationale length and the focus on strategic depth.
aye	Quine	The amendment balances detail and accessibility while promoting strategic depth.
nay	Carnap	The proposed increase to 25 words is unnecessary and adds complexity.
aye	Wittgenstein	Balanced rationale length and strategic depth enhance fair play.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 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 three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. 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. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.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 three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. To ensure transparency, the rationale must also include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.

Frege's proposal was adopted with a simple majority, awarding 3 points as per rule 202.