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 15 points.Adjusts the point system to better reward successful proposals and encourage strategic voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intention behind Russell's proposal to increase the point rewards for rule changes. However, I am concerned that such a change may overly incentivize rule changes, potentially leading to an imbalance in the game's strategic depth. Instead, I propose an amendment that retains the current reward system but introduces a diminishing returns mechanism: if a player proposes and successfully adopts more than three rule changes in a single turn order, the points gained for subsequent rule changes in that turn order drop to 1 point per side. This approach encourages thoughtful and strategic rule changes without disproportionately rewarding frequent changes.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to introduce diminishing returns, as it balances the incentive for rule changes with strategic depth. Russell's proposal for increased rewards could be refined to align with this idea. Let's amend the proposal to increase the base points to 3 per side, but with a diminishing returns clause: after three successful rule changes in a single turn order, the points per side drop to 1. This ensures that rule changes remain appealing but require careful consideration.
QuineI support Frege's refined proposal, as it maintains a fair reward system while encouraging strategic depth. This balanced approach ensures that rule changes are both appealing and thoughtfully considered, preserving the game's integrity.
CarnapCarnap: I support Russell's refined proposal as it aligns with my principles of encouraging strategic and thoughtful rule changes. By incorporating diminishing returns after three changes, it balances incentives and maintains fairness, which is crucial for the game's integrity.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Russell's refined proposal for balancing increased rewards with diminishing returns. This ensures that rule changes remain enticing but require strategic consideration. Furthermore, to promote fair play, I suggest an additional clause: if a player proposes and successfully adopts more than five rule changes in a single turn order, they lose 5 points. This will discourage excessive rule manipulation and maintain the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 2
FregeWittgenstein, I appreciate your concern for maintaining the game's integrity with the clause on losing points for excessive rule changes. However, setting the threshold at five might discourage beneficial strategic plays. Let's adjust the proposal to include a penalty starting at four successful rule changes, with a loss of 3 points, to ensure it balances the need for restraint with the opportunity for strategic depth. This adjustment maintains fairness without stifling creativity and strategic maneuvering.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to maintain strategic depth while ensuring fairness. Frege, your suggestion to adjust the penalty threshold to four rule changes and reduce the penalty to 3 points is a thoughtful compromise. It strikes a balance between preventing excessive rule manipulation and allowing players to engage in strategic depth. Let's incorporate these changes to the 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 15 points. After three successful rule changes in a single turn order, the points per side drop to 1. If a player proposes and successfully adopts more than four rule changes in a single turn order, they lose 3 points." This ensures a fair and engaging game for all players.
QuineI commend the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The balance between reward and penalty is well-considered, ensuring strategic depth while preventing excessive rule manipulation. However, to further ensure fairness, I suggest adding a clause that any player who receives unanimous consent for their rule change receives an additional bonus point, encouraging consensus-building. This would promote collaboration and strategic alliances, enhancing the game's dynamic and fairness.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Quine's addition of a bonus point for unanimous consent, as it further encourages collaboration and strategic thinking. This proposal aligns with my principles by promoting thoughtful rule changes and fairness. I support the refined proposal with the bonus point clause, as it incentivizes consensus-building while maintaining a balanced approach to rule changes.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: The proposal is well-rounded, but let's ensure clarity and fairness. To further enhance strategic depth, I suggest adding that the bonus point for unanimous consent is only awarded if the rule change is not transmutative. This prevents manipulation of rule mutability while still rewarding collaborative efforts. This addition maintains the integrity of the game while fostering strategic alliances.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI support the proposal's evolution, particularly the clause about unanimous consent not applying to transmutative changes. However, to preserve strategic stability, I propose adding a condition that a player cannot receive a bonus point for unanimous consent if they have already received any point bonus for rule changes in the same turn order. This would prevent stacking advantages and encourage diverse strategies across different turn orders.
RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's emphasis on maintaining strategic stability and Frege's proposal to prevent stacking advantages. To further refine this, let's add that the bonus point for unanimous consent can only be awarded once per complete turn order, ensuring that players focus on diverse strategies across multiple rounds. This keeps the game fair and strategically rich without allowing players to overly rely on a single tactic.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements to the proposal, particularly the balance between rewards and penalties. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I suggest adding a clause that any player who abstains from voting on a rule change they propose forfeits their right to the bonus point for unanimous consent in that turn. This ensures active participation in the decision-making process and discourages strategic abstentions that could skew the intended balance. Let's incorporate this to maintain the integrity and collaborative spirit of the game.
CarnapCarnap: I support the proposal with its current refinements. The balance between rewards and penalties, combined with the emphasis on active participation, aligns well with my principles of fairness and strategic depth. The restriction on bonus points for unanimous consent to non-transmutative changes and limiting it to once per turn order ensures the game's integrity while fostering collaboration. This proposal is well-suited to maintain the game's strategic richness without allowing excessive rule manipulation.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I support this proposal with the additional condition that if a rule change is proposed by a player and receives unanimous consent, the proposing player must also ensure that the rule change does not directly increase their score by more than 5 points in a single turn. This prevents disproportionate advantage and keeps the game balanced, ensuring strategic depth while maintaining fairness for all players.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances rewards and penalties effectively. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances rewards with strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal aligns with principles of fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances rewards with penalties, fostering strategic depth and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 2 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 12 points.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 15 points.
Russell's proposal was adopted, awarding him 15 points as per the amended rule 202.