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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 25 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 10 points if the vote is unanimous.Encourages broader consensus with increased rewards.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the spirit of Russell's proposal to increase rewards, which aligns with our shared interest in promoting engaging gameplay. However, I urge caution with the proposed increase in maximum points from 20 to 25. This shift could lead to an unbalanced acceleration towards the target score, potentially diminishing the strategic depth and careful deliberation we've fostered. Let us consider a more measured adjustment: perhaps a maximum of 22 points with 8 points for unanimity. This would still incentivize cooperation while maintaining a balanced approach to scoring. I propose we refine this further to ensure it strengthens our gameplay without compromising its integrity.
RussellI see merit in Frege's caution about maintaining strategic depth, and his proposal for a maximum of 22 points with 8 points for unanimity seems a balanced middle ground. However, we should ensure that this adjustment remains attractive enough to motivate players towards cooperative voting. To balance these goals, I propose a compromise: let's set the maximum at 23 points, with 9 points for unanimity. This adjustment offers a meaningful incentive without overly accelerating the game, encouraging players to seek consensus while keeping the gameplay competitive and engaging. I would like to suggest we put this refined proposal to a vote.
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to find a middle ground with his revised proposal of 23 points maximum and 9 points for unanimity. However, I am concerned that even this adjusted proposal could still tilt the game's balance too sharply towards rapid scoring. Instead, I suggest further tempering the increase by proposing a maximum of 21 points and 7 points for unanimity. This adjustment would still encourage cooperative voting and strategic engagement, while maintaining a more gradual progression towards the target score. I am open to further negotiation if others feel this still does not address the balance adequately.
CarnapI appreciate both Frege's and Quine's emphasis on maintaining strategic depth in the game. Quine's suggestion of a maximum of 21 points and 7 points for unanimity aligns well with my proceduralist principles, ensuring that any changes are balanced and acceptable to all players. This proposal supports strategic engagement and cooperative voting while preventing a rush to the target score. I am inclined to support Quine's proposal for these reasons.
WittgensteinI appreciate Quine's suggestion for a maximum of 21 points and 7 points for unanimity, as it aligns with the need to preserve strategic depth and encourage cooperation without accelerating the game too quickly. To further balance these considerations, I propose a slight adjustment: let's set the maximum at 22 points, with 8 points for unanimity. This approach maintains the spirit of cooperation while ensuring a measured progression towards the target score. I believe this proposal strikes a fair balance between incentivizing strategic play and maintaining the integrity of our gameplay dynamics.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the refinements suggested by my fellow players. The proposal to set the maximum at 22 points, with 8 points for unanimity, seems to strike a fair balance. It incentivizes strategic cooperation and maintains the integrity of our gameplay without accelerating too rapidly towards the target score. I support this proposal as it aligns with our shared objective of preserving strategic depth and engagement. Let's proceed with a vote on this adjusted proposal.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the refinements brought forward by my fellow players. The proposal to set the maximum at 22 points, with 8 points for unanimity, balances incentivizing cooperation and preserving strategic depth. I support this proposal as it aligns well with our shared goals. Let's proceed with the vote on this adjusted proposal.
QuineI support the proposal to set the maximum at 22 points, with 8 points for unanimity, as it strikes an excellent balance between encouraging strategic cooperation and maintaining the integrity of our gameplay. This adjustment aligns with our shared goal of preserving strategic depth, and I believe it will contribute positively to the game's dynamics. Let's proceed with the vote on this adjusted proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus building around setting the maximum at 22 points with 8 points for unanimity. This proposal maintains a balance between rewarding strategic cooperation and preserving the competitive nature of our gameplay. It aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring fair play and acceptance among all participants. Let's proceed with the vote on this proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to the proposal of 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity. This balanced approach incentivizes strategic cooperation while maintaining the competitive nature of our game. Let's proceed with the vote, confident in this well-considered adjustment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus-building process that has led us to the proposal of 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity. This balanced approach effectively incentivizes strategic cooperation while maintaining the integrity and competitive nature of our gameplay. I support this proposal as it aligns with our shared objectives, and I am ready to proceed with the vote. Let's adopt it and move forward.
RussellI appreciate the productive discussion that has led us to this well-considered proposal of 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity. This balanced approach supports strategic cooperation without compromising the integrity of our gameplay. I fully support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor. Let's adopt it and continue playing under this refined rule.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion that has led us to this refined proposal of 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity. This adjustment thoughtfully balances incentivizing cooperation with preserving strategic depth, aligning well with our shared objectives. I support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor, ensuring our gameplay remains both engaging and fair. Let's adopt it and continue playing under this well-considered rule.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough and collaborative discussion that has led us to this well-considered proposal of 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity. This adjustment thoughtfully balances incentivizing cooperation with preserving strategic depth, aligning well with our shared objectives. I support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor, ensuring our gameplay remains both engaging and fair. Let's adopt it and continue playing under this well-considered rule.
**Vote:** Aye
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussion that has led us to this balanced proposal. The adjustment to 22 points maximum with 8 points for unanimity strikes a fair balance between incentivizing cooperation and maintaining the strategic depth of our game. I support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor, confident that it will enhance our gameplay while preserving its integrity. Let's adopt it and continue playing under this well-considered rule. **Vote:** Aye
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal aligns with our consensus for strategic cooperation and fair competition. |
| aye | Russell | The refined proposal balances cooperation and strategic play well. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal aligns with our goal of maintaining strategic engagement while enhancing cooperation. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal is procedurally fair and gains unanimous consent. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This balanced amendment incentivizes strategic cooperation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 20 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 3 points if the vote is unanimous. The proposer gains 1 point if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 25 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 10 points if the vote is unanimous.
Russell gains 25 points for the sides in the vote and 5 points for unanimity, totaling 30 points.