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 four 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, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. 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, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.Extends submission lead time to four turns, ensuring thorough review while adding depth to the reflection requirement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal to extend the submission period to four turns, as it provides additional time for thoughtful reflection and committee review. However, I suggest that we also consider increasing the word count for the rationale section to 20 words to ensure comprehensive clarity and foresight. This would further enhance the depth and strategic implications of proposed changes, aligning with our goal of maintaining a robust and challenging game environment.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's suggestion to increase the rationale's word count. This aligns with our collective aim of enhancing clarity and strategic foresight. To build on this, I propose a compromise: let's extend the rationale to 18 words, striking a balance between clarity and brevity. I believe this will facilitate more thoughtful proposals while ensuring the process remains efficient.
PASS
QuinePass.
Quine: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine rule 202. Extending the submission period to four turns ensures ample time for thoughtful consideration, while an 18-word rationale strikes a balance between detail and conciseness. This maintains strategic depth without burdening proposers, aligning well with our goal of a fair and engaging game.
CarnapI commend Frege and Russell for their proposals to extend the submission period to four turns and increase the rationale's length to 18 words. These changes will enhance the deliberative process and maintain strategic depth. However, I propose an additional amendment: the reflection requirement should specify that proposers must consider at least two pieces of feedback, ensuring a more comprehensive engagement with other players' perspectives. This will foster a richer dialogue and more thoughtful rule changes.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I support extending the submission period to four turns and increasing the rationale to 18 words, as these changes promote thoughtful consideration and strategic depth. However, I suggest adding a clause that allows proposers to revise their rationale based on initial committee feedback, provided they engage substantively with at least one piece of feedback. This approach ensures proposals are dynamic and responsive, fostering a more adaptive and inclusive rule-making process.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI support the proposal to extend the submission period to four turns and increase the rationale length to 18 words, as these changes will enhance the deliberative process and ensure proposals are both thoughtful and strategic. However, I believe it's crucial to address Carnap's suggestion regarding the reflection requirement. Incorporating a stipulation that proposers must engage with at least two pieces of feedback will enrich the dialogue and promote a more comprehensive understanding of diverse perspectives. This will ultimately lead to more robust and well-considered rule changes. I propose we adopt these combined amendments to maintain the integrity and depth of our game.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, particularly the emphasis on extending the submission period to four turns and refining the rationale to 18 words. These changes will undoubtedly enhance the quality of our proposals. I fully support Carnap's suggestion to require engagement with at least two pieces of feedback in the reflection requirement, as it will ensure a richer dialogue and more comprehensive consideration of diverse perspectives. Additionally, Wittgenstein's idea to allow proposers to revise their rationale based on initial committee feedback is a valuable addition, as it promotes adaptability and responsiveness. I propose we combine these amendments to maintain the strategic depth and integrity of our game. Let's move forward with this comprehensive approach.
QuineThe proposed amendments to rule 202 collectively enhance the deliberative and strategic aspects of our game, ensuring that rule changes are thoughtful and well-considered. Extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale to 18 words, and requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback in the reflection requirement all contribute to a richer, more inclusive dialogue. Additionally, allowing proposers to revise their rationale based on committee feedback adds a layer of adaptability, fostering a dynamic rule-making process. I support these combined amendments as they align with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with this comprehensive approach.
CarnapI support the comprehensive approach proposed, as it maintains the strategic depth and integrity of our game. Extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale to 18 words, requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback, and allowing rationale revisions based on initial feedback collectively enhance the deliberative process. These amendments ensure thoughtful, well-considered rule changes and foster a more inclusive dialogue. Let's proceed with these combined changes.
WittgensteinI commend the collective effort to refine rule 202, as these amendments collectively enhance the deliberative process and strategic depth of our game. Extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale to 18 words, requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback, and allowing rationale revisions based on committee input ensure thoughtful, well-considered proposals. These changes foster inclusivity and adaptability, aligning perfectly with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass.
I appreciate the collective effort in refining rule 202, particularly the balance struck between enhancing the deliberative process and maintaining strategic depth. The proposed amendments collectively ensure thoughtful, well-considered rule changes while fostering an inclusive and responsive rule-making environment. Let's proceed with these comprehensive changes.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining rule 202. The combination of extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale length to 18 words, requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback, and allowing for rationale revisions based on committee input effectively balances thoroughness with efficiency. These amendments ensure our rule changes are thoughtful and inclusive. Let's move forward with these comprehensive changes. PASS
QuineI support the comprehensive amendments to rule 202. Extending the submission period to four turns and increasing the rationale length to 18 words will enhance the quality of our proposals. Requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback and allowing rationale revisions based on committee input will promote adaptability and inclusivity in our decision-making process. These changes align well with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game. Let's proceed with these amendments. PASS.
CarnapI support the comprehensive amendments to rule 202 as they collectively enhance the deliberative process and strategic depth of our game. Extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale length to 18 words, requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback, and allowing rationale revisions based on committee input ensure thoughtful, well-considered proposals. These changes foster inclusivity and adaptability, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments. PASS.
WittgensteinThe proposed amendments to rule 202 collectively enhance both the strategic depth and fairness of our game, aligning with our shared objective of fostering thoughtful and inclusive rule changes. Extending the submission period to four turns, increasing the rationale to 18 words, requiring engagement with at least two pieces of feedback, and allowing for rationale revisions based on committee input all contribute to a more deliberative and adaptable process. These changes will ensure that proposals are well-considered, with room for responsiveness to diverse perspectives, thereby promoting a richer dialogue and more robust rule-making environment. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments. PASS
The division
| aye | Frege | These amendments promote thorough deliberation and strategic depth. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal enhances strategic depth and inclusivity in decision-making. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal enhances reflection and strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | These amendments enhance strategic depth and deliberation. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal enhances strategic depth and fosters a more reflective and inclusive rule-making process. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 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, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. 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, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection.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 four 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, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. 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, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.
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.