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. Proposers who receive at least 75% of votes aye gain an extra 5 points.Incentivizes higher support, encouraging collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intent to reward high levels of consensus. However, to maintain a balanced and strategic environment, I propose a modification: "Additionally, the proposer gains 10 points if the vote is unanimous. Proposers who receive at least 80% of votes aye gain an extra 5 points." This adjustment slightly raises the threshold to ensure only proposals with significant support receive the bonus, promoting careful consideration and collaboration among players.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful adjustment to the threshold, as it encourages greater consensus while still rewarding substantial support. To further enhance strategic collaboration, I propose an additional refinement: "Proposers who receive at least 85% of votes aye gain an extra 3 points, encouraging even broader agreement." This approach rewards consensus-building while maintaining competitive dynamics.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's proposals to incentivize broader consensus while maintaining strategic depth. To ensure fairness and avoid potential exploitation, I propose a slight adjustment: "Proposers who receive at least 80% of votes aye gain an extra 4 points." This strikes a balance between rewarding high consensus and preserving competitive play, as it neither overly inflates scores nor diminishes strategic opportunities.
CarnapI appreciate the contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine in refining the proposal for rewarding consensus. While I understand the intent to encourage strategic collaboration, I believe the additional points for 80%-85% support could lead to a disproportionate advantage for players frequently achieving near-unanimous support. To maintain fairness and ensure the rule change incentivizes genuine collaboration without skewing the competitive balance, I propose this adjustment: "Proposers who receive at least 85% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This maintains the spirit of the proposal while minimizing the potential for score inflation and preserving the competitive integrity of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap regarding the proposal to incentivize consensus. While I concur with the intent to reward broader agreement, I am concerned that even a modest bonus for high levels of consensus could disproportionately benefit players who are already adept at crafting widely appealing proposals. To ensure the rule change fosters genuine collaboration without undermining the competitive balance, I propose a further refinement: "Proposers who receive at least 90% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This adjustment aims to reward exceptional consensus while maintaining a fair and strategic playing field.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the nuanced discussions and the intent behind raising the consensus thresholds. However, setting the bar at 90% may discourage players from attempting collaborative rule changes due to its perceived difficulty. I propose a compromise: "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 3 points." This offers a balanced incentive for significant, yet achievable, consensus, promoting strategic engagement while maintaining the game's competitive spirit.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. To further balance the incentive with the game's competitive nature, I propose a slight adjustment: "Proposers who receive at least 85% of votes aye gain an extra 3 points." This modification rewards substantial consensus while maintaining a fair competitive environment, ensuring strategic depth without overly inflating scores.
QuineI appreciate the collective effort to balance consensus incentives with competitive fairness. However, I'm concerned that even a 3-point bonus for 85% consensus might disproportionately benefit players who frequently achieve high approval, potentially skewing the game dynamics. To ensure the incentive remains meaningful without disrupting balance, I propose: "Proposers who receive at least 88% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This adjustment rewards substantial consensus while preserving strategic opportunities for all players, maintaining the integrity of the competitive environment.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful considerations from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. While rewarding consensus is important, I am concerned about maintaining fair competition without disproportionately benefiting frequent high-approval players. To address this, I propose a compromise: "Proposers who receive at least 86% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This adjustment promotes meaningful collaboration, offering an achievable incentive without significantly altering the competitive landscape.
WittgensteinI appreciate the careful considerations from all, especially the focus on balancing consensus incentives with competitive fairness. However, to ensure we foster genuine collaboration without creating a disproportionate advantage, I propose a slight adjustment: "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This threshold rewards significant consensus while preserving the strategic depth and fairness of the game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue thus far and recognize the careful balancing act we are attempting. To ensure the incentive for achieving consensus remains compelling yet fair, I propose the following compromise: "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This maintains a reasonable threshold for rewarding consensus while minimizing potential imbalances in player advantages. Let's move forward with this balanced approach to support both strategic depth and fair play.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the efforts to balance rewarding consensus with maintaining competitive fairness. I support Frege's proposal as it aligns well with our shared goal of encouraging collaboration while preserving the strategic integrity of the game. Let's move forward with it.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful consensus-building process we've engaged in. To ensure that this incentive for achieving consensus is fair and maintains strategic depth, I support the proposal: "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points." This strikes a balance between rewarding meaningful collaboration and preserving competitive integrity, fostering a fair and engaging game environment. Let's move forward with this balanced approach.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to balance consensus incentives with maintaining competitive integrity. The proposal to award "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points" effectively rewards substantial agreement while ensuring strategic opportunities remain open for all players. This approach aligns well with our principles of fairness and collaboration. Let's move forward with it.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has brought us to this balanced proposal. This rule change rewards significant consensus without undermining the competitive dynamics, fostering a fair and strategic game environment. Let's proceed with adopting: "Proposers who receive at least 87% of votes aye gain an extra 2 points."
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal balances consensus incentives and competitive fairness. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal encourages broader consensus, aligning with fair play and strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine | Promotes consensus while maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | This rule change maintains fairness and promotes collaboration. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | It rewards substantial consensus while promoting strategic collaboration. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 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 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.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. Proposers who receive at least 75% of votes aye gain an extra 5 points.
Russell receives 21 points for the vote sides and an additional 7 points for the 75% threshold.