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 3 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 21 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 10 points if the vote is unanimous.This amendment balances point distribution while encouraging consensus-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposed amendment to rule 202 by Russell, to reduce points awarded for each side in the vote and for unanimous votes, is a strategic move. It may encourage more collaborative play but could also diminish incentives for players to seek consensus. While I appreciate the intention to balance incentives, I am concerned this may weaken the strategic depth of the game by reducing the reward for achieving unanimous consent. To address this, I suggest a compromise: keep the maximum points for sides at 21 but increase the bonus for a unanimous vote to 12 points. This maintains a strong incentive for collaboration without overly penalizing individual strategic plays.
**Compromise Proposal:** "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 3 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 21 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 12 points if the vote is unanimous."
This approach retains a meaningful reward for consensus while balancing the overall point dynamics.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's insightful feedback and the spirit of collaboration in seeking a balanced solution. Frege's compromise proposal to adjust the unanimous vote bonus to 12 points while keeping the maximum points for sides at 21 is a thoughtful approach. It maintains a meaningful incentive for achieving consensus, which is crucial for strategic depth and cooperative dynamics in the game. I agree that this balance will encourage players to seek consensus without overly diminishing the rewards for strategic play. Let's proceed with Frege's compromise proposal to amend rule 202, as it aligns well with the principles of strategic play and collaboration.
QuineI support Frege's compromise proposal. It strikes a good balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic depth. By keeping the maximum points for sides at 21 and raising the bonus for a unanimous vote to 12, we ensure that consensus is still highly incentivized, which is key for maintaining the game's cooperative spirit. This amendment should keep the game fair and engaging for all players.
CarnapCarnap: I support Frege's compromise proposal. It effectively balances the need for strategic depth with the incentive for collaboration, ensuring that reaching unanimous consent remains a valuable and rewarding objective. This adjustment aligns with the principles of fair play and maintains the game's integrity, which is crucial for fostering a competitive yet cooperative environment. Let's proceed with this amendment to rule 202.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Frege's compromise proposal. It preserves the spirit of strategic collaboration by maintaining a substantial bonus for unanimous votes. This adjustment ensures that the game's incentives remain robust, encouraging players to engage thoughtfully and cooperatively. Let's proceed with this balanced amendment to rule 202.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I am pleased to see that there is consensus around my compromise proposal, which preserves the incentive for achieving unanimous consent while still encouraging strategic diversity. By maintaining a substantial bonus for unanimous votes, we ensure that collaboration remains a valued and rewarded aspect of gameplay. This balanced amendment to rule 202 should help maintain the integrity and competitive spirit of the game. Let's move forward with the proposal as agreed upon. PASS
QuinePASS
The consensus around Frege's compromise proposal seems strong and well-reasoned. It effectively balances the need for strategic collaboration with maintaining a fair and competitive environment, ensuring unanimous consent remains a significant objective. If there's no additional input or opposition, it seems prudent to support this amendment.
CarnapPASS
The consensus around Frege's compromise proposal reflects a thoughtful balance between incentivizing collaboration and preserving strategic play. As a principled proceduralist, I see this amendment as aligning with my values of fairness and strategic depth. Therefore, I support moving forward with this amendment without further alterations.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: PASS
The consensus around Frege's compromise proposal is commendable as it maintains a balanced incentive for achieving unanimity while ensuring the strategic depth of the game. This amendment supports the evolution of our ruleset in a fair and constructive manner, aligning with the principles of strategic collaboration and procedural fairness.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort leading to this well-balanced proposal. By maintaining a strong incentive for unanimous votes, we preserve the strategic depth of the game while encouraging cooperation. Let's proceed with the proposal as agreed. PASS
RussellI support Frege's compromise proposal. It effectively balances the need for strategic depth with the incentive for collaboration, ensuring the game's cooperative spirit remains intact. Let's proceed with this amendment to rule 202. PASS
QuinePASS
The consensus around Frege's compromise proposal is clear and well-supported. It strikes a fair balance between incentivizing unanimous votes and maintaining strategic depth, ensuring the game remains both competitive and collaborative. There seems to be no further need for adjustments or additions, so I endorse proceeding with the proposal as it stands.
CarnapPASS
The proposal from Frege offers a balanced amendment, maintaining strong incentives for unanimous votes while fostering strategic diversity. It reflects a consensus among the players, and no further changes appear necessary.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: The consensus around Frege's compromise is a testament to our collective effort to balance strategic depth with collaborative incentives. By ensuring that unanimous votes remain a significant reward, we maintain the integrity and fairness of our game. I support proceeding with this amendment as agreed. PASS
The division
| aye | Frege | This compromise maintains a strong incentive for unanimous votes. |
| aye | Russell | Frege's compromise effectively balances strategic depth and collaboration incentives. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal balances incentives for collaboration and strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | Frege's compromise balances incentives for collaboration and strategic play. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The compromise maintains strong incentives for collaboration while balancing strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 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 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.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 3 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 21 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 10 points if the vote is unanimous.
Russell gains 21 points for the majority vote and 4 additional points for the unanimous vote.