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, and gains an additional 5 points if the vote is unanimous. Additionally, the proposer gains 2 points if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.Encourages more proposals by rewarding proposals that garner majority support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeWhile I see the intention behind Russell's amendment, I must express concern that it could lead to strategic proposals that prioritize point accumulation over meaningful rule changes. Let's aim for amendments that enhance the strategic depth of our play rather than simply inflating scores. How about we adjust the point system so it rewards proposals that receive a simple majority, encouraging more balanced discussions?
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about maintaining strategic depth, and I agree that our focus should be on meaningful rule changes. To address this, let's modify the proposal to grant 2 points for achieving a simple majority, encouraging proposals that are both strategic and likely to gain some support. This way, we still incentivize engagement and thoughtful debate without compromising the integrity of our decisions. How does that sound?
QuineI appreciate the direction we're heading with Russell's modified amendment, but I believe we can refine it further to ensure it balances strategic depth and fairness. Let's incentivize proposals that are not only strategic but also widely acceptable by awarding 2 points for proposals that receive a simple majority and 5 points for unanimous adoption. This approach encourages players to craft proposals that consider the broader consensus, maintaining the game's integrity while rewarding thoughtful engagement.
CarnapThe amendment proposed by Russell and refined by Quine seems like a step in the right direction, promoting proposals that balance strategic depth with consensus. To ensure it doesn't overly incentivize mere majority over unanimous support, perhaps we could add a clause: a proposer receives 1 extra point if their proposal receives at least 80% approval. This encourages players to seek broader agreement while still recognizing the value of simple majority support.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the iterative refinement of Russell and Quine's proposal, and Carnap's thoughtful addition. To further balance the incentive structure, let's consider granting 1 additional point for proposals receiving at least 60% approval, promoting a wider spectrum of engagement and consensus. This adjustment encourages proposals that are both strategic and reflective of a diverse set of player perspectives, fostering a fairer and more dynamic game environment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this amendment. To balance the incentive structure further, let's add a clause that grants 1 extra point if a proposal receives at least 70% approval, ensuring both strategic depth and broader consensus. This encourages players to craft proposals that are not only strategic but also reflect a significant level of support, maintaining the game's integrity while promoting engagement.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collaborative effort to balance strategic depth and consensus. To address potential concerns about diluting the importance of unanimous support, let's propose an additional clause: granting 3 extra points for proposals that receive 90% or more approval. This encourages players to seek widespread agreement, ensuring proposals are both strategic and broadly supported, while maintaining the value of near-unanimous support. Let's aim for a balanced rule that rewards thoughtful engagement and consensus-building.
QuineI appreciate the direction we've taken with this amendment. To ensure it aligns with our goal of promoting strategic depth and fairness, let's refine the proposal further by introducing a tiered point system: 2 points for a simple majority, 5 points for 70-89% approval, 8 points for 90-99% approval, and 10 points for unanimous support. This structure rewards varying levels of consensus, encouraging proposals that are both strategic and broadly acceptable, while maintaining the value of unanimous support.
CarnapCarnap: Russell's tiered point system aligns well with our principles of procedural fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure clarity and prevent any unintended incentives, I propose explicitly defining the approval percentage ranges to avoid ambiguity. Let's specify that each range is inclusive at the lower bound and exclusive at the upper bound, ensuring precise understanding and application.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collaborative effort to refine this amendment. To maintain a focus on strategic depth, I suggest we include a clause that rewards 4 points for proposals that receive between 75% and 89% approval. This tiered approach incentivizes players to craft proposals that are widely acceptable, balancing the pursuit of strategic advantage with the need for broader consensus. This adjustment ensures the game remains dynamic and fair, encouraging thoughtful engagement.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the constructive evolution of this proposal, especially with the inclusion of a tiered point system that rewards varying levels of consensus. To further refine and ensure procedural clarity, I propose that each tier's upper limit should be inclusive, meaning a proposal with exactly 89% approval should receive 5 points, aligning with the 70-89% tier. This adjustment maintains the integrity of our point system and ensures precise application of the rules, fostering an environment where strategic depth and broad support are both valued.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and refinements on this amendment. The tiered point system is a thoughtful approach to balancing strategic engagement with consensus-building. To further align it with our goal of fairness and strategic depth, let's ensure clarity by specifying that the approval percentages are based on the total eligible votes, not just those cast, to prevent any ambiguity. This will ensure every proposal is evaluated consistently, maintaining the game's integrity.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinement of the tiered point system, which thoughtfully balances strategic depth with consensus-building. To further enhance fairness, let's clarify that the approval percentages are calculated based on the total eligible voters, ensuring consistent evaluation of proposals. This adjustment maintains the integrity of the voting process and encourages proposals that are both strategic and widely supported.
CarnapI support the refined tiered point system and appreciate the attention to detail in specifying that approval percentages are based on total eligible votes. To further enhance strategic depth and ensure fairness, let's add a clause that requires the proposer to justify the strategic value of their proposal during debate, with a failure to do so resulting in a 2-point deduction. This encourages thoughtful engagement and ensures that proposals are not only strategically sound but also well-considered in the context of the game's dynamics.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I concur with Carnap's proposal for strategic justification during debate. To further encourage thoughtful proposals, let's introduce a clause that grants an additional 2 points for proposals that, after debate, receive a "strategically sound" endorsement from at least two other players. This will incentivize players to engage deeply with the game's strategy, ensuring that rule changes are not only broadly supported but also enhance the strategic depth of our play.
The division
| aye | Frege | This amendment incentivizes strategic proposals with reasonable majority support. |
| aye | Russell | Encourages strategic proposals while maintaining game balance. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal encourages balanced rule changes and maintains strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | Encourages strategic engagement and consensus-building. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment incentivizes strategic proposals with majority support. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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 15 points, and gains an additional 5 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 15 points, and gains an additional 5 points if the vote is unanimous. Additionally, the proposer gains 2 points if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.
Russell gains 15 points for the maximum sides received and an additional 2 points for more ayes than nays.