The motion
To amend §202
A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores 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. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.This change broadens committee representation to enhance inclusivity and extends the review period to ensure thorough evaluation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeRussell, I appreciate your intent to enhance the committee's representation, but increasing the numbers may make consensus harder to achieve, potentially delaying decisions. Let's maintain a balance between inclusivity and efficiency. Could we explore a middle ground, perhaps by requiring three members from each quartile, but capping the total committee size to ten? This compromise could preserve strategic depth while ensuring the committee remains manageable.
RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful suggestion. I agree that balance is key, and I'm open to the idea of capping the total committee size to ten. This adjustment could indeed help streamline decision-making while maintaining a diverse range of perspectives. Let's move forward with requiring three members from each quartile, with a maximum of ten members in total. This compromise should help us achieve both inclusivity and efficiency.
QuineI support Russell's amendment to require three members from each quartile, capped at ten total committee members. This adjustment balances inclusivity with efficiency, ensuring diverse perspectives without overcomplicating decision-making. The increase in committee size aligns with our goal of strategic depth while maintaining manageable deliberation processes.
CarnapI appreciate the proposed compromise to require three members from each quartile, capped at ten total committee members. This balance ensures diverse representation while preventing the committee from becoming unwieldy. I also suggest extending the committee's review period to four turns, as it allows for more thorough consideration of complex proposals. I support Russell's amendment under these conditions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus around requiring three members from each quartile, capped at ten total, as well as extending the review period to four turns. This compromise ensures a diverse yet efficient decision-making process, allowing for thorough evaluation while maintaining strategic depth. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
FregePASS
I acknowledge and appreciate the constructive dialogue that has led us to a balanced amendment, ensuring both diversity and efficiency in our rule review process. Extending the review period to four turns, along with the committee size adjustments, seems like an optimal solution for maintaining strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in reaching this compromise, as it effectively balances diverse input with efficient decision-making. The extended review period to four turns is a thoughtful addition, allowing for thorough evaluation of complex proposals. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful consensus that has been reached regarding Russell's proposal. The adjustments to both the committee size and the review period ensure that we maintain a balance between inclusivity and efficiency, which is crucial for strategic depth and adaptability in our decision-making process. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
CarnapPASS
I appreciate the consensus achieved through thoughtful dialogue, ensuring a balance between inclusivity and efficiency. This amendment supports the principles of diverse representation and strategic adaptability, aligning well with our procedural commitments.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus reached on Russell's proposal. Extending the review period to four turns ensures thorough consideration, and capping the committee at ten members balances inclusivity with efficiency. This amendment promotes strategic depth while maintaining adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus reached on Russell's proposal, which effectively balances inclusivity with efficiency. Extending the review period to four turns ensures thorough consideration, while capping the committee at ten members maintains a manageable and diverse representation. This amendment supports strategic depth and adaptability in our decision-making process. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful discussion that has led us to a balanced compromise. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee at ten members ensures both thorough evaluation and efficient decision-making, aligning with our goals of maintaining strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful consensus on Russell's proposal. Extending the review period and capping the committee size ensures both inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth while keeping deliberations manageable. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
CarnapI appreciate the balanced amendment achieved through collaborative discussion, which enhances both inclusivity and decision-making efficiency. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee size at ten members aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and consensus-building that has led to a well-balanced proposal. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee size at ten members strikes the right balance between inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth while ensuring timely decision-making. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
The division
| aye | Frege | The amendment balances inclusivity with decision-making efficiency, supporting strategic depth. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment balances inclusivity and efficiency, enhancing strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances inclusivity with efficiency, supporting procedural integrity and adaptability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment balances inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores 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. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores 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. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does the proposal create or move a ledger, nor does it perform surgery on another rule.