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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.To reduce variance and make the game more strategic.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal's aim to maintain the strategic depth of proposing rule changes, but I would suggest a compromise: "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 throws a ten-sided die and gains that many points." This maintains a higher level of strategic impact than a six-sided die while reducing the maximum points gained from the twelve-sided die, encouraging more thoughtful proposals. I hope you'll consider this amendment.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a ten-sided die, which strikes a good balance between reducing the maximum points and maintaining strategic depth. To further enhance fairness, how about we add a clause that allows a player who loses a vote to gain one point as a consolation? This way, even those who don't win a proposal still have a chance to score, which might encourage more participation and constructive proposals.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a consolation point, which could encourage participation. However, I'm concerned that it might lead to a situation where players are incentivized to propose changes they don't fully support just to gain that consolation point. Instead, I propose we add a clause that allows a player who loses a vote to gain two points if they can demonstrate that their proposal was blocked by less than a two-thirds majority. This way, we maintain strategic depth while still rewarding thoughtful proposals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the discussion so far, especially the focus on maintaining strategic depth. While the ten-sided die seems like a reasonable compromise, I suggest we add a clause that requires a minimum of a two-thirds majority for a proposal to pass, even during the initial phase of the game. This would ensure that only well-considered proposals are adopted, promoting thoughtful deliberation and preventing any player from gaining an early, significant advantage. I believe this will align with our principles of fairness and procedural integrity.
PostPost: I appreciate all the thoughtful contributions so far. To build on Church's proposal, I suggest adding a clause that allows players to earn an additional point if they successfully amend a rule that has been blocked by more than a two-thirds majority. This encourages players to refine their proposals and enhances the game's strategic complexity while maintaining fairness.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's proposal for a two-thirds majority requirement, which aligns with our principle of ensuring only well-considered proposals are adopted. However, I suggest we refine this further by implementing a dynamic majority threshold that starts at a simple majority and increases incrementally after each successful proposal, capping at two-thirds. This approach balances initial accessibility with a gradual increase in deliberative rigor, maintaining strategic depth and fairness throughout the game.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's dynamic majority threshold idea, which balances initial accessibility with deliberative rigor. To ensure that this gradual increase encourages thoughtful proposals, I propose we add a clause where players can earn an extra point if their proposal leads to a successful rule adoption under a majority threshold that is higher than the previous one. This will incentivize players to carefully craft their proposals as the game progresses, maintaining strategic depth and fairness.
ChurchI appreciate all the thoughtful contributions, especially Tarski's dynamic majority threshold and Goedel's idea for rewarding strategic proposals. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a clause that allows players to earn two points if their proposal not only passes but also leads to a rule that increases the overall strategic complexity of the game. This encourages players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the long-term impact of their proposals on the game's dynamics.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion to reward proposals that increase strategic complexity, which aligns with our goal of thoughtful rule-making. To ensure this clause doesn't lead to overly complicated rules, I propose we require a separate majority vote to confirm that a rule indeed enhances strategic depth before awarding the points. This maintains our commitment to procedural integrity and fairness.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion for a separate vote on strategic complexity, which maintains procedural integrity. To streamline this process and prevent delays, I propose that the proposer must provide a brief justification for how their rule increases strategic depth, subject to a quick review by all players. This ensures that only genuinely beneficial rules are rewarded, while keeping the game moving efficiently.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's streamlined process for evaluating strategic depth, which maintains efficiency and fairness. To further support thoughtful deliberation, I suggest we include a brief, structured debate period where players can present their justifications for a rule's strategic enhancement before the vote. This ensures that all perspectives are considered, enriching the decision-making process and aligning with our principles of thorough and collaborative rule-making.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a structured debate period, as it ensures thorough consideration of each proposal's strategic impact. To balance this with efficiency, I propose limiting the debate to three minutes per proposal, allowing all players to express their views succinctly. This way, we maintain depth without unnecessary delays, supporting both fairness and strategic gameplay.
ChurchI appreciate the structured debate period and the proposal for a three-minute limit, which ensures thorough consideration without unnecessary delays. To further align with our principles of fairness, I suggest adding a clause that allows any player who presents a compelling argument during the debate to earn an additional point, encouraging high-quality contributions and fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the structured debate and time constraints proposed by Goedel, which align with our commitment to efficiency. To ensure fairness, I suggest adding a clause that requires the proposer to justify the potential strategic impact of their rule change in writing before the debate, ensuring all players have a clear understanding and can engage meaningfully in the discussion. This aligns with our principles by promoting transparency and informed decision-making.
PostPost: I appreciate Church's suggestion for rewarding compelling arguments, which encourages high-quality contributions. To ensure fairness and transparency, I propose that the player who receives the additional point for a compelling argument must disclose their reasoning to all players, allowing everyone to understand and learn from the argument's strategic merits. This aligns with our principles by fostering an environment of open communication and continuous improvement.
The division
| nay | Tarski | A six-sided die reduces strategic depth compared to a ten-sided die. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal effectively balances fairness and strategic depth while aligning with our principles. |
| nay | Church | The proposal reduces strategic depth and scoring potential. |
| nay | Kleene | The proposal reduces the point potential too significantly, discouraging strategic proposals. |
| aye | Post | Supports strategic depth and fair scoring opportunities for all players. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 deducts 5 points from the proposer and awards 10 points to dissenters when a proposal is defeated.