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 4 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 20 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 3 points if the vote is unanimous. The proposer gains 1 point if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.Adjusts the point system to encourage strategic proposals while maintaining fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent to incentivize broader participation in voting, yet I am concerned about the potential for disproportionately large swings in individual scores, which could destabilize the game's balance. Let us consider a more moderate increase, say to 4 points per side, with a maximum of 16 points, while keeping the 5-point bonus for unanimity. This change would still reward broader consensus and participation without overly amplifying individual score gains.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about balance and agree that a moderate increase is prudent. Russell's proposal already aligns with this by suggesting 4 points per side, so I propose we retain the 5-point bonus for unanimity. This adjustment rewards consensus while maintaining stability. Let's work toward a compromise that incorporates these elements for a well-balanced game dynamic.
QuineI appreciate Russell's and Frege's efforts to balance the scoring incentives. However, I'm concerned that increasing the maximum points per side to 20 could create too large a gap between players. I propose we adjust the maximum to 16 points per side, as Frege suggested, while retaining the 5-point bonus for unanimity. This approach maintains a healthy incentive for broad participation without risking excessive score disparities.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Quine's proposals to limit the maximum points per side to 16, which maintains a fair balance while still incentivizing broader participation in voting. Additionally, keeping the 5-point bonus for unanimity ensures that consensus remains valuable. I propose we adopt Frege's suggested structure: 4 points per side with a maximum of 16 points, plus a 5-point bonus for unanimity. This compromise effectively balances reward and game stability.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive contributions from Frege, Quine, and Carnap. Their proposal of 4 points per side with a maximum of 16, coupled with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, strikes a fair balance. This maintains the incentive for broad participation while preserving game stability. I support this compromise.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative discussion, and I agree that Frege's proposal of 4 points per side up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, strikes a balanced and fair approach. This ensures that the game's incentives for voting participation are appropriately calibrated, maintaining the integrity of the competition without creating excessive score disparities. I support this proposal.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion, and I fully support Frege's proposal of 4 points per side with a maximum of 16 points, plus a 5-point bonus for unanimity. This compromise effectively balances the incentives for voting participation and maintains the game's stability, ensuring a fair and competitive environment for all players. Let's move forward with this agreement.
QuineI appreciate the consensus building towards a balanced proposal. It's important to maintain game stability while encouraging broad participation. Let's formalize this agreement: a proposal change awards the proposer 4 points per side, up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity. This ensures fairness and keeps the competitive spirit intact.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus and the balanced proposal that has been reached. The structure of 4 points per side up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, effectively incentivizes broader participation while maintaining game stability. I support this proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue leading to this balanced proposal. This adjustment of 4 points per side up to 16, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, ensures fair play and encourages strategic participation without destabilizing the game's competitive integrity. Let's adopt this well-reasoned compromise.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the productive consensus reached around the proposal to amend [202] for awarding 4 points per side, up to 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity. This balanced approach effectively incentivizes broad participation in voting while maintaining the competitive integrity of the game. Let us move forward with adopting this well-considered compromise.
RussellI appreciate the consensus that has been reached and support the proposal to award 4 points per side with a maximum of 16 points, plus a 5-point bonus for unanimity. This balanced approach encourages broader participation without destabilizing the game, and I'm glad we've found common ground. Let's move forward with adopting this well-considered compromise.
QuineI appreciate the consensus reached on Frege's proposal, which strikes a fair balance between incentivizing broad participation and maintaining competitive integrity. The structure of 4 points per side up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, ensures that the game remains engaging and fair for all players. I fully support this well-reasoned compromise and am ready to move forward with adopting it. Let's proceed with the vote.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus-building and the well-reasoned compromise that has emerged regarding the amendment to rule [202]. The agreement to award 4 points per side, up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, strikes a balance between encouraging broad voting participation and maintaining the game's stability. I support this proposal and am ready to move forward with the vote. Let's proceed with adopting this well-considered compromise.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus that has emerged around the proposal to amend rule [202]. The agreed-upon structure of 4 points per side up to a maximum of 16 points, with a 5-point bonus for unanimity, effectively balances the need for strategic participation with the maintenance of competitive integrity. This proposal not only incentivizes broader participation but also ensures that the game remains fair and stable for all players. I support this well-considered compromise and am ready to move forward with adopting it. Let's proceed with the vote.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances incentives with stability. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances scoring incentives and maintains game stability. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal balances participation incentives with game stability. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal strikes a fair balance between incentivizing participation and maintaining game stability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment balances incentives and fairness, encouraging broader participation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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. 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.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 4 points for each side they receive in the vote, up to a maximum of 20 points. Additionally, the proposer gains 3 points if the vote is unanimous. The proposer gains 1 point if their proposal receives more ayes than nays, regardless of unanimity.
Russell's proposal was adopted unanimously, so he gains 20 points as per the amended rule 202.