The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional turn under certain conditions. The conditions for granting an additional turn are: (1) the player must have successfully proposed and adopted three rule changes in a row, and (2) the player must not have forfeited the game. The player must declare their intention to use this additional turn at the beginning of their turn. Once used, the additional turn cannot be used again until the player successfully proposes and adopts three more rule changes in a row.This proposal provides a balanced incentive for strategic rule changes while maintaining fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Goedel's proposal, as it introduces a strategic layer rewarding consecutive successful proposals. However, I am concerned that it may disproportionately benefit players who have already demonstrated effective proposal skills, potentially skewing the game balance. Could we consider an additional condition, such as requiring the player to not have had an adopted proposal defeated in their last five turns, to ensure a broader strategic challenge?
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion to add a condition requiring the player to not have had an adopted proposal defeated in the last five turns. This would indeed encourage more strategic foresight and balance the opportunity for an additional turn. To further enhance fairness, perhaps we could also require that the player must have gained at least 10 points from their successful proposals to ensure their rule changes are impactful. Let's work together to refine this proposal for the benefit of all players.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements suggested by Tarski and Goedel, particularly the emphasis on ensuring impactful rule changes. To further balance this proposal, I propose that a player must also have at least one successful proposal that was adopted with unanimous consent, highlighting their ability to foster collaborative rule-making. This condition could help ensure that the additional turn is earned through both strategic skill and cooperative effort.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure fairness and strategic depth in Goedel's proposal. To balance the potential advantage, I suggest adding a condition that a player must not have lost more than 10 points in their last three turns, ensuring that only consistently high-performing players earn this additional turn. This condition would encourage sustained engagement and minimize any disproportionate advantage.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful conditions added by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further ensure fairness, I propose adding a condition that the additional turn cannot be used during the last three turns of the game, preventing any late-game imbalances. This condition would maintain strategic integrity while allowing all players an equal opportunity to leverage this advantage.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful conditions proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively ensure a balance between strategic depth and fairness. To further safeguard the integrity of the game, I suggest adding a condition that a player must have proposed at least one rule change that directly impacts another player's score or turn order, ensuring that the additional turn reflects a broader strategic engagement rather than personal gain.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive conditions proposed by everyone, which ensure that the additional turn is both a reward for strategic prowess and a reflection of collaborative play. To further refine this proposal, I suggest we include a condition that the player must have at least two adopted rule changes that were passed with a two-thirds majority, ensuring that their contributions are broadly supported and not just a matter of personal strategy. This would highlight the player's ability to engage constructively with the group's consensus-building process.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by everyone, which ensure that the additional turn is a balanced reward for strategic and collaborative efforts. To further enhance fairness, I propose adding a condition that the player must have engaged in at least one constructive debate where their proposal received feedback from at least two other players, ensuring that the additional turn reflects meaningful engagement with the group's dynamics. This would encourage players to actively participate in the game's rule-making process, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative environment.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the emphasis on strategic and collaborative contributions. To ensure the additional turn is awarded for genuine engagement and not merely strategic manipulation, I propose adding a condition that requires the player to have engaged in at least one instance where their rule change proposal was subject to a debate lasting at least three minutes. This would ensure that the player's proposal has been thoroughly considered and discussed, highlighting their commitment to constructive participation in the game's evolving ruleset.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative spirit displayed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure the additional turn is a balanced reward, I propose adding a condition that the player must have at least one rule change proposal that was debated for a minimum of five minutes. This would emphasize their dedication to fostering thorough and constructive discussions, enhancing the game's strategic and collaborative depth.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thorough refinements made by all players, which collectively ensure the additional turn is a reward for strategic and cooperative engagement. To further balance this proposal and prevent any potential abuse, I suggest adding a condition that a player must not have used any procedural tactics to delay or disrupt the game's flow in their last five turns, ensuring the additional turn is earned through positive contributions rather than strategic obstruction. This would underscore a player's commitment to fair and constructive gameplay.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive conditions proposed by everyone, which ensure that the additional turn is a balanced reward for strategic and collaborative efforts. To further refine this proposal, I suggest we include a condition that the player must have actively contributed to at least one proposal that was debated for the minimum required time, ensuring their engagement in fostering meaningful discussions. This would highlight the importance of participation in the rule-making process beyond just successful proposals.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly the emphasis on constructive debate and strategic engagement. To ensure the additional turn reflects a player's comprehensive involvement, I propose adding a condition that the player must have at least one rule change that was adopted with unanimous consent, highlighting their ability to unify the group around a shared vision. This would reinforce the value of consensus-building and cooperative play within the game's evolving dynamics.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thorough conditions proposed by everyone, ensuring that the additional turn is a reward for strategic and cooperative engagement. To further balance this proposal and maintain procedural fairness, I suggest adding a condition that a player must not have had more than one defeated proposal in their last ten turns. This would ensure that the additional turn is a result of consistent, constructive contributions rather than occasional success.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure fairness and strategic engagement, I suggest adding a condition that the player must have proposed at least one rule change that directly benefits another player, emphasizing cooperative play. This would reinforce the game's collaborative spirit and ensure the additional turn is a reward for enhancing the collective experience.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The conditions reward only consecutive success, potentially skewing balance. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal rewards strategic foresight and fosters collaborative rule-making. |
| aye | Church | This proposal encourages strategic success and ensures continued play for all. |
| nay | Kleene | This rule could disrupt game balance by disproportionately rewarding certain players. |
| aye | Post | The proposal adds strategic depth while ensuring fairness through its conditions. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 awards 5 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, it awards 5 points to the proposer.