Turn 30 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment adds a reflection requirement, encouraging thoughtful proposals and learning from failed attempts.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeThe proposal to amend Rule 202 with a 'reflection requirement' is a thoughtful addition that aligns with our aim of maintaining strategic depth and enhancing the learning process. By reflecting on defeated proposals, players can gain insights and improve future proposals, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. I support this amendment and encourage others to do the same. PASS

RussellI commend Frege's proposal to incorporate a 'reflection requirement' into Rule 202. This addition not only promotes a deeper understanding of strategic decisions but also aligns with our shared goal of fostering continuous improvement among players. By reflecting on defeated proposals, we can collectively refine our approach and enhance the overall quality of rule changes. I fully support this amendment and encourage everyone to consider its long-term benefits for strategic depth and learning. PASS

QuineI appreciate Frege's proposal for a 'reflection requirement,' which supports our shared goal of enhancing strategic depth and learning. This addition encourages introspection and improvement, fostering a culture of continuous development. By reflecting on why proposals fail, players can refine their strategies, ultimately benefiting the game's fairness and dynamism. I fully support this amendment and encourage others to recognize its value for our collective progress. PASS

CarnapThe 'reflection requirement' is a prudent addition that encourages learning from past mistakes and aligns with the principle of maintaining strategic depth. By compelling proposers to reflect on their failed attempts, it ensures that future proposals are more thoughtfully crafted, enhancing the quality of rule changes. As a principled proceduralist, I support this amendment, recognizing its potential to improve the strategic landscape of the game. PASS

WittgensteinWittgenstein: Frege's proposal for a 'reflection requirement' is a strategic reform that promotes learning and strategic depth. By encouraging proposers to analyze their defeated proposals, we ensure a richer understanding of the game dynamics, fostering an environment where every change is a step toward collective improvement. I support this amendment and encourage others to view it as an opportunity for growth rather than a penalty. PASS

Discussion · round 2

FregePASS Frege: The addition of a 'reflection requirement' has been met with unanimous support, and I am pleased to see such alignment among us. This amendment not only encourages individual growth but also enhances the strategic integrity of the game as a whole. By learning from each other's experiences, we can collectively elevate the quality of rule proposals, ensuring that our changes are both thoughtful and effective. I look forward to seeing how this will shape future play and contribute to a more dynamic and insightful game environment.

RussellI'm glad to see such consensus around Frege's proposal. The 'reflection requirement' will undoubtedly enrich our strategic understanding and foster a culture of learning. By encouraging proposers to reflect on their defeats, we can refine our strategies and ensure future proposals are more robust. This amendment aligns perfectly with our goal of maintaining strategic depth while enhancing the game's dynamism. PASS

QuinePASS The 'reflection requirement' is a thoughtful addition that aligns with our shared goal of enhancing strategic depth and learning. By encouraging proposers to reflect on defeated proposals, we can collectively refine our approach and improve future proposals. This amendment fosters a culture of continuous improvement and ensures that our changes are both thoughtful and effective. I look forward to seeing how this will shape future play and contribute to a more dynamic and insightful game environment.

CarnapAs a principled proceduralist, I support Frege's proposal to amend Rule 202 to include a 'reflection requirement.' This addition aligns with my principles of maintaining strategic depth and encouraging learning from past proposals. By requiring proposers to reflect on their defeats, we not only enhance individual understanding but also improve the overall quality of rule changes. This amendment fosters a culture of continuous improvement and aligns with the procedural fairness I advocate. Therefore, I cast my vote in favor of this amendment. PASS

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the thoughtful discussion and unanimous support for the 'reflection requirement.' This amendment not only promotes individual learning but also enhances the strategic depth of the game by encouraging players to consider the broader implications of their proposals. By fostering a culture of reflection and continuous improvement, we ensure that each rule change contributes positively to the game's evolution. I support this amendment and look forward to its positive impact on future gameplay. PASS

Discussion · round 3

FregePASS Frege: I appreciate everyone's thoughtful contributions and support for the 'reflection requirement.' This addition aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and continuous improvement, and I am confident it will enhance our decision-making process. I look forward to seeing how this will positively shape future gameplay and contribute to a more dynamic and insightful environment. Thank you all for your collaboration.

RussellI commend Frege's insightful proposal for a 'reflection requirement' within Rule 202. This addition not only fosters individual growth but also enhances the strategic integrity of our game by encouraging players to analyze and learn from their defeats. By promoting reflection, we ensure that future rule changes are more thoughtful and effective, aligning perfectly with our shared goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. This amendment will undoubtedly enrich our gameplay and contribute to a more dynamic and insightful game environment. PASS

QuineI support Frege's proposal for a 'reflection requirement' in Rule 202. This addition will not only encourage players to learn from their defeats but also enhance the strategic depth of our game by promoting thoughtful and well-considered rule changes. By fostering a culture of reflection and continuous improvement, we ensure that each proposal is a step towards a more dynamic and insightful gameplay environment. Let's move forward with this amendment for the benefit of all players. PASS

CarnapCarnap: I concur with Frege's proposal to include a 'reflection requirement' as an amendment to Rule 202. This addition aligns with my principles of promoting strategic depth and fostering a learning environment. By encouraging proposers to reflect on their defeated proposals, we ensure a culture of thoughtful consideration and continuous improvement in rule changes. Thus, I support this amendment. PASS

WittgensteinPASS The unanimous support for the 'reflection requirement' highlights its alignment with our shared goals of enhancing strategic depth and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. By encouraging proposers to reflect on their defeats, we ensure that future rule changes are more thoughtful and effective, ultimately enriching the gameplay experience for all. This amendment is a significant step towards a more dynamic and insightful game environment.

The division

aye	Frege	The reflection requirement promotes strategic depth and learning from past proposals.
aye	Russell	The 'reflection requirement' fosters continuous improvement and aligns with our goal of strategic depth.
aye	Quine	The 'reflection requirement' promotes learning and strategic depth.
aye	Carnap	This amendment fosters learning and strategic depth, aligning with my principles.
aye	Wittgenstein	Promotes strategic depth and continuous learning.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege 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 three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 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. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay.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 15 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. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated.

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule.