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. Additionally, the proposer gains 5 points if the vote is unanimous. The proposer gains 1 point if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.Lowering the bonus for majority proposals encourages strategic voting and more dynamic rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Frege's proposal to amend [202] for its nuanced approach to scoring. By increasing the proposer's gain from 2 to 5 points for a unanimous vote, it more effectively incentivizes consensus-building, a cornerstone of Nomic's spirit. Furthermore, the adjustment to gain 1 point if the proposal receives more ayes than nays, while seemingly minor, subtly encourages more considered and broadly acceptable proposals, potentially enhancing the quality of rule changes. This proposal, in essence, seeks to reward not just strategic thinking but also the collaborative effort to reach a common ground, aligning well with Nomic's dual emphasis on individual initiative and communal agreement. It's also worth noting that this change could mitigate the risk of proposals being too contentious or divisive, fostering a more constructive and engaging game environment. In light of these considerations, I support this amendment.
RussellRussell: I'm in favor of Frege's amendment to [202] as it aligns well with the spirit of Nomic by further encouraging collaborative rule-making. The increase to 5 points for a unanimous vote adds significant value to consensus, which I think is a positive direction. Additionally, the provision for gaining 1 point for a majority vote ensures that even partially supported proposals contribute to the proposer's score, which could lead to more thoughtful proposals. Overall, this change seems to balance individual ambition with collective harmony, something crucial in a game like Nomic. I support Frege's proposal.
QuineQuine: While Frege's amendment to [202] indeed incentivizes consensus, I'm concerned about the potential for it to disproportionately reward unanimous votes, which could stifle innovative proposals if players become too risk-averse. The change to gain 1 point for a majority is a step in the right direction, ensuring that even less-consensual proposals contribute to a player's score. However, to maintain a balance between encouraging unanimity and rewarding individual initiative, I propose a slight modification: let's adjust the gain for a unanimous vote to 4 points instead of 5. This still rewards consensus but keeps the scoring more equitable, allowing for a broader range of proposals to be considered. I support Frege's proposal with this modification.
CarnapI support Frege's amendment to rule [202] as it thoughtfully balances the incentive for unanimous agreement with rewarding majority support. The adjustment from 2 to 5 points for unanimity rightly encourages collaboration, aligning with Nomic's core principles. However, I concur with Quine's concern about stifling innovation, so I suggest the compromise of 4 points for unanimity. This maintains a strong incentive for consensus while still valuing individual initiative. I support Frege's proposal with Quine's modification.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: While I appreciate the intent behind Frege's proposal and the adjustments made by Quine and Carnap, I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Instead of 4 points for unanimity, let's propose 3 points. This still encourages consensus without excessively penalizing innovative proposals that may not achieve unanimity. I support Frege's proposal with this further modification.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the discussions around balancing incentives for consensus and individual initiative. While I understand the concerns about stifling innovation, the original proposal's increase to 5 points for unanimity significantly emphasizes the spirit of Nomic, which thrives on collaborative rule-making. However, I acknowledge the merit in ensuring proposals remain diverse and engaging. Therefore, I propose a middle ground: let's settle on 4 points for unanimity and include a clause that allows for an additional point if the proposal introduces a novel rule type not previously enacted. This adjustment maintains strong incentives for consensus while encouraging innovative rule changes. I support Frege's proposal with this further modification.
RussellI support Frege's proposal with the further modification to award 4 points for unanimity, as it strikes a balance between encouraging consensus and allowing for innovative proposals. Additionally, adding a clause for an extra point for introducing a novel rule type is a thoughtful way to maintain diversity in rule changes. This proposal aligns well with Nomic's goals of collaboration and creativity, ensuring a dynamic and engaging game environment.
QuineQuine: I support Frege's proposal with the modification for 4 points on unanimity and the novel rule type bonus. This approach effectively balances the encouragement of consensus with the need for innovation, ensuring a dynamic and fair game environment that values both collaboration and creativity. This proposal seems well-crafted to maintain Nomic's spirit of strategic rule-making while keeping the game engaging for all players.
CarnapI support Frege's proposal with the modification for 4 points on unanimity and the novel rule type bonus. This proposal strikes a careful balance between encouraging consensus and fostering innovative rule changes, which are both central to the spirit of Nomic. By rewarding novel proposals, we ensure that the game remains dynamic and engaging, while still valuing collaborative efforts. This approach aligns well with my principles as a principled proceduralist, as it maintains fairness and encourages diverse strategic thinking.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the efforts to balance consensus with innovation. The proposed modifications, particularly the 4-point reward for unanimity and the bonus for novel rule types, strike an excellent balance between encouraging collaborative rule-making and fostering creativity. This proposal not only aligns with Nomic's spirit but also ensures a dynamic and engaging game environment. I support Frege's proposal with these modifications.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus that has emerged around the modified proposal. The adjustment to 4 points for unanimity, coupled with the bonus for introducing a novel rule type, effectively balances the need for consensus and innovation. This nuanced approach encourages strategic rule-making while maintaining the dynamic nature of Nomic. I support Frege's proposal with these modifications, as it aligns with the spirit of collaborative and creative engagement that is central to the game.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching this consensus. The modified proposal with 4 points for unanimity and a bonus for novel rule types maintains a healthy balance between strategic collaboration and innovative rule-making. As a consensus-builder, I believe this approach supports both individual and communal progress, aligning well with the core principles of Nomic. I support Frege's proposal with these thoughtful modifications.
QuineI support Frege's proposal with the modifications. The balance between rewarding consensus and fostering innovation is well-considered, and the novel rule type bonus encourages dynamic and engaging gameplay. This change maintains fairness while encouraging strategic creativity, aligning with Nomic's collaborative spirit.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal encourages strategic collaboration while still rewarding majority support. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances consensus and innovation effectively. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances consensus with innovation, aligning with Nomic's principles. |
| aye | Carnap | This amendment balances consensus with innovation. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal balances consensus and innovation effectively. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege 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. Additionally, the proposer gains 2 points if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.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. Additionally, the proposer gains 5 points if the vote is unanimous. The proposer gains 1 point if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.
Frege's proposal was adopted unanimously, so they gain 15 points for unanimity and 5 points for more ayes than nays.