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 7 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 28 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 15 points if the vote is unanimous.This amendment incentivizes consensus-building and encourages strategic collaboration among players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Quine's proposal to increase the incentive for gaining more votes, which encourages broader consensus. However, I am concerned that raising the maximum points per turn from 25 to 28, along with the unanimous bonus from 10 to 15 points, might overly incentivize seeking unanimous votes at the expense of strategic depth and diversity of proposals. A more measured increase, say to 6 points per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus, could balance the need for strategic gameplay with the motivation for consensus, ensuring that the game remains challenging and engaging.
I suggest we amend [202] as follows: "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 6 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 24 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 12 points if the vote is unanimous."
This modification respects the spirit of Quine's proposal while maintaining a balanced and strategically rich game environment.
RussellRussell: Quine's proposal is commendable for increasing incentives, which aligns with our goal to foster broader consensus. However, I share Frege's concern that too large a bonus may disrupt strategic diversity. Frege's suggestion to adjust the points to 6 per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus seems a prudent balance, maintaining competitive dynamics while still encouraging collaboration. I support this compromise to ensure the game's strategic depth remains intact.
Let's amend [202] as follows: "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 6 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 24 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 12 points if the vote is unanimous."
QuineQuine: I appreciate both Frege and Russell's insights. The proposed compromise indeed offers a balanced approach that maintains strategic depth while still incentivizing consensus. This middle ground supports a dynamic and fair gameplay environment, which aligns with the broader goals of the game.
I agree with Frege and Russell's suggestion to amend [202] as follows: "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 6 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 24 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 12 points if the vote is unanimous."
PASS
CarnapPASS
The proposed amendment to rule [202] provides a reasonable balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining strategic depth. Supporting this compromise aligns with my principles, as it ensures fair play and respects the integrity of the ruleset.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the proposed compromise by Frege and Russell. Quine's original intent to incentivize broader consensus is commendable, and Frege's adjustment addresses the risk of overly prioritizing unanimous votes. By setting the points to 6 per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus, we maintain a balanced approach that encourages collaboration without undermining strategic diversity. This compromise aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic integrity that are central to our game.
I support this amendment to [202] as proposed by Frege and Russell, as it ensures the game remains both engaging and equitable.
Aye
---
[Proposal 314]
On the floor is a proposal to amend rule [202] as follows: "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 6 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 24 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 12 points if the vote is unanimous."
Proposal 314: to amend [202] as proposed by Frege and Russell. Aye or Nay?
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I commend the thoughtful engagement that has led to this balanced amendment. By setting the points to 6 per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus, we maintain a healthy dynamic between strategic play and consensus-building. This compromise respects the integrity of the game while encouraging collaborative decision-making. I support this amendment.
Aye
Russell: Russell: The dialogue among us has been constructive, leading to a well-reasoned amendment that enhances the game's strategic richness without compromising on fairness. This proposal reflects a careful balance between rewarding broad consensus and preserving the diversity of strategic approaches. I stand with Frege and Quine in supporting this amendment.
Aye
Quine: Quine: The collaborative process has yielded a compromise that I am happy to endorse. The proposed amendment offers a fair incentive structure that promotes consensus while upholding the strategic depth of our game. I appreciate the consensus-driven approach that has shaped this proposal and am in full support of it.
Aye
Carnap: I am pleased to see that a compromise has been reached which maintains the strategic integrity of our game. The adjustment to 6 points per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus is a thoughtful response to the concerns raised, and I believe it will foster a more cooperative and competitive environment. I support the amendment as proposed by Frege and Russell.
Aye
Wittgenstein: Wittgenstein: The collective wisdom of our discussions has led to a fair and balanced amendment to [202]. The proposed point structure effectively encourages both consensus and strategic diversity, aligning with the core values of our game. I am content with the compromise and support its adoption.
Aye
RussellI'm glad to see consensus forming around this balanced amendment to [202]. Frege, Russell, and Quine's collaborative approach has led to a proposal that promotes strategic depth and consensus without disproportionately favoring unanimous votes. This amendment strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging collaboration and preserving diverse strategies.
Aye
QuinePASS
This amendment strikes a fair balance, promoting consensus while preserving strategic diversity, aligning with the principles of fairness and integrity in our game. I support it as it has been collaboratively refined through thoughtful discussion.
CarnapPASS
The proposal reflects a thoughtful compromise that balances incentives for consensus with the need for strategic diversity, aligning with my principles of fairness and integrity. I support the amendment as proposed.
WittgensteinPASS
The proposed amendment to rule [202] successfully balances the need for strategic diversity with the incentive for broader consensus. It respects the game's integrity by encouraging collaboration without overwhelming strategic variety. Thus, supporting this compromise aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic depth that guide our gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus that has emerged around this balanced amendment to [202]. By setting the points to 6 per side and a 12-point unanimous bonus, we maintain a healthy dynamic between strategic play and consensus-building. This compromise respects the integrity of the game while encouraging collaborative decision-making. I support this amendment.
Aye
CarnapPASS
The consensus reached on this amendment to rule [202] thoughtfully balances strategic depth with incentives for consensus. It supports fair play and respects the principles I value, maintaining integrity and encouraging collaboration without disrupting gameplay dynamics.
WittgensteinPASS
The proposed amendment to [202] carefully balances the need for encouraging consensus with maintaining strategic depth, aligning with the principles of fairness and integrity essential to our game. The collaborative process and thoughtful compromise reflect a well-considered approach to rule modification, ensuring a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposed amendment maintains strategic depth while enhancing consensus incentives. |
| aye | Russell | The amendment balances strategic depth with consensus incentives. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment promotes consensus while maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposed amendment maintains strategic balance and encourages consensus. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment balances strategic depth with incentives for consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Quine 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 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.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 7 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 28 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 15 points if the vote is unanimous.
Quine's proposal was adopted unanimously, so Quine gains 15 points for unanimity and 20 points for 4 sides (7 points each for 4 sides).