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 15 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.Reduce the reflection length to 15 words to streamline proposal processes, fostering efficiency without sacrificing depth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion around this proposal and its intent to streamline the committee's review process. Reducing the review period to three turns could increase efficiency, but we should be cautious not to compromise the quality of our deliberations. I suggest we maintain the four-turn review period to ensure comprehensive evaluation, which aligns with our strategic goals for durability and depth in rule changes. I propose a compromise: allow the rationale to be revised once during the debate stage with the committee's unanimous consent, maintaining the four-turn period. This approach balances efficiency with the thoroughness necessary for strategic rule changes.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Wittgenstein. Maintaining the four-turn period indeed aligns with our shared goal of ensuring comprehensive evaluation. However, I also see merit in Frege's suggestion for allowing a rationale revision with unanimous committee consent, which could enhance flexibility without sacrificing depth. I propose we adopt this compromise: retain the four-turn review period while allowing for a single revision of the rationale during the debate stage, granted the committee agrees unanimously. This approach balances thoroughness and adaptability, ensuring our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of collective insights.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. The suggestion to allow a rationale revision during the debate stage with unanimous committee consent is a thoughtful compromise. It maintains the thoroughness of a four-turn review while introducing flexibility to incorporate new insights. This approach ensures our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of collective insights, aligning with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. Let's adopt this compromise to enhance our decision-making process.
CarnapPASS
I support the compromise proposed by Frege and further refined by Russell and Quine. It maintains the comprehensive evaluation period while allowing for adaptability, ensuring that rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our collective insights. This aligns with my principles of ensuring procedural fairness and strategic depth.
WittgensteinI support the compromise reached by Frege, Russell, and Quine. This approach upholds our commitment to strategic depth and fairness by maintaining the four-turn review period while allowing for rationale revisions with unanimous committee consent. It ensures our rule changes are both thoughtful and adaptable, aligning with my vision for a more equitable Nomic process.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I commend the consensus reached on maintaining a four-turn review period with the flexibility to revise rationales unanimously. This balanced approach ensures thorough deliberation while allowing adaptability, supporting strategic depth and fairness. I support this compromise as it aligns with my principles of creating durable institutions without sacrificing flexibility. PASS.
RussellI appreciate the consensus that has emerged around the proposal. This compromise effectively balances the need for thorough evaluation with the flexibility to incorporate new insights during the debate stage. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous revision of the rationale, we ensure that our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our collective insights. This approach aligns with my values of fostering adaptability while preserving the integrity of our decision-making process. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation.
QuineI support the proposed compromise. Maintaining a four-turn review period ensures thorough evaluation, while allowing a single rationale revision with unanimous committee consent introduces necessary flexibility. This approach aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and fairness, ensuring our rule changes are both thoughtful and adaptable.
CarnapI support the compromise as it maintains the necessary thoroughness of a four-turn review period while introducing flexibility through unanimous consent for rationale revisions. This approach ensures that our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness and maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinI commend the thoughtful refinement process we've engaged in. This compromise ensures our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable, embodying the principles of fairness and depth we strive for. By maintaining a four-turn review period with the possibility of a unanimous rationale revision, we strike a balance between thorough evaluation and the flexibility to incorporate new insights. This approach aligns perfectly with my vision for a dynamic and equitable Nomic process. I support this compromise and encourage its adoption.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI support the compromise as it effectively balances the need for thorough evaluation with the flexibility to adapt to new insights during the debate stage. This ensures our rule changes are strategic, fair, and reflective of collective insights, aligning with my commitment to durable institutions that promote fairness and strategic depth.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the balanced compromise we've reached. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous rationale revision, we ensure our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable. This approach aligns with my values of fostering thoroughness and flexibility, ensuring our decisions are thoughtful and reflective of collective insights. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation. PASS
QuineI support the consensus reached on the compromise. The four-turn review period ensures thoroughness, while the unanimous consent for rationale revisions provides necessary flexibility, aligning with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. This approach balances efficiency with comprehensive evaluation, fostering a fair and adaptable Nomic process.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative efforts of all players in reaching a balanced compromise. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous rationale revision, we ensure both thoroughness and adaptability in our rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and strategic depth. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation. PASS.
WittgensteinI commend the collective wisdom in reaching this compromise. It upholds the integrity of our decision-making while allowing for the necessary flexibility to adapt to evolving insights. This approach ensures that our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our shared values, promoting a fair and dynamic Nomic experience. I support this proposal wholeheartedly.
The division
| aye | Frege | The compromise balances thorough evaluation with adaptability. |
| aye | Russell | This compromise balances thoroughness with adaptability. |
| aye | Quine | This compromise maintains thorough evaluation while allowing for necessary adaptability. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal enhances adaptability and maintains fairness, aligning with strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This compromise maintains thoroughness while allowing adaptability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 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 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.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 15 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.
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule.