Turn 26 — Nomic

The motion · 1 of 2

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. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.

This amendment introduces an additional rule change option to enhance strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Church's proposal to allow a third rule change that promotes fairness or strategic depth, as it introduces a thoughtful nuance. However, I suggest that we further refine the conditions under which a third rule change can be proposed. Specifically, I propose that the third rule change must be unanimously agreed upon by the other players at the end of the player's turn to ensure it truly enhances the game without unintended consequences. This additional layer of consensus will maintain the integrity of the ruleset while encouraging innovative yet balanced proposals. **Proposed Amendment to Church's Proposal:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn."

GoedelI appreciate Church's initiative to enhance strategic depth by allowing a third rule change, and Tarski's suggestion to require unanimous agreement for such a change adds a necessary safeguard. To further refine this, I propose that the third rule change, in addition to being unanimously agreed upon, must also pass an initial pre-vote among the players to ensure broad support before being formally debated. This step will ensure that the proposal is constructive and has the potential to be beneficial, minimizing disruption to the game's flow. **Refined Proposal:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support and unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn."

ChurchI appreciate both Church's and Tarski's proposals to refine the conditions for a third rule change, as well as Goedel's addition of a pre-vote. To ensure that the third rule change truly promotes fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a condition that this rule change must not only pass a pre-vote and obtain unanimous agreement but also be accompanied by a brief rationale from the proposer. This rationale should articulate how the proposed rule change enhances the game, allowing players to better evaluate its potential impact. **Enhanced Proposal:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support, unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn, and the provision of a rationale detailing how the change enhances the game."

KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made to Church's proposal, particularly the inclusion of a rationale requirement and an initial pre-vote. However, to ensure that the third rule change does not become a tool for undue complexity, I propose that any third rule change must also pass a secondary debate phase, where players can specifically address its potential impact on the game's balance and fairness. This additional step will help maintain the integrity of the game while allowing for innovative rule changes. **Final Proposal:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support, unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn, the provision of a rationale detailing how the change enhances the game, and a secondary debate phase to assess its impact on game balance and fairness."

PostI appreciate the detailed enhancements to Church's proposal, especially the inclusion of a secondary debate phase. This ensures thorough evaluation of any third rule change, aligning with our commitment to strategic depth and fairness. To further bolster this process, I suggest adding a condition that the proposer of the third rule change must also agree to a binding vote on whether they retain their turn if the third change fails the secondary debate phase. This commitment will encourage only well-considered proposals, maintaining game balance and fairness. **Final Proposal with Addition:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support, unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn, the provision of a rationale detailing how the change enhances the game, a secondary debate phase to assess its impact on game balance and fairness, and the proposer's agreement to a binding vote on retaining their turn if the third change is rejected in the secondary debate."

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate Post's proposal to include a binding vote on whether the proposer retains their turn if the third change fails the secondary debate. This condition underscores the importance of well-considered proposals and aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and fairness. To further refine this amendment, I suggest that if a player chooses to forgo their turn due to the rejection of a third rule change, they receive a compensatory point bonus. This bonus would serve as recognition for their effort to enhance the game and encourage thoughtful participation in proposing innovative rule changes, without penalizing them excessively for unsuccessful attempts. **Refined Proposal with Bonus:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support, unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn, the provision of a rationale detailing how the change enhances the game, a secondary debate phase to assess its impact on game balance and fairness, and the proposer's agreement to a binding vote on retaining their turn if the third change is rejected in the secondary debate. If the proposer chooses to forgo their turn due to rejection, they receive a compensatory point bonus."

GoedelI appreciate Post's addition of a binding vote on retaining the turn, as well as Tarski's suggestion for a compensatory point bonus. To ensure this proposal remains balanced and does not unduly incentivize risky proposals, I propose that the compensatory point bonus for forgoing a turn be limited to a single point, awarded only if the third rule change fails by a significant margin (e.g., a two-thirds majority in the secondary debate). This limitation will maintain the incentive for thoughtful proposals while discouraging attempts at undue advantage. **Proposed Limitation on Bonus:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores, subject to an initial pre-vote for majority support, unanimous agreement by all other players at the conclusion of the turn, the provision of a rationale detailing how the change enhances the game, a secondary debate phase to assess its impact on game balance and fairness, and the proposer's agreement to a binding vote on retaining their turn if the third change is rejected in the secondary debate. If the proposer chooses to forgo their turn due to rejection, they receive a compensatory point bonus of one point, awarded only if the third rule change fails by a two-thirds majority in the secondary debate."

ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, especially the limitation on the compensatory bonus to maintain balance. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the compensatory bonus be awarded only if the third rule change fails by unanimous consent during the secondary debate. This ensures that the bonus is granted only when there is clear, collective agreement on the proposal's shortcomings, thereby preserving the incentive for well-considered rule changes without encouraging excessive risk-taking. **Suggested Amendment to Bonus Condition:** "If the proposer chooses to forgo their turn due to rejection, they receive a compensatory point bonus of one point, awarded only if the third rule change fails by unanimous consent in the secondary debate."

KleeneI appreciate the careful refinements and balance maintained in the proposal. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I support the condition that the compensatory bonus be awarded only if the third rule change fails by unanimous consent during the secondary debate. This prevents undue advantage while encouraging thoughtful engagement. I will vote in favor of this proposal.

PostI appreciate the collective effort in refining this proposal, especially Church's suggestion to require unanimous consent for the compensatory bonus. This ensures fairness and discourages frivolous rule changes. I will also vote in favor of this proposal. PASS

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful and detailed refinements that have been proposed to Church's amendment. The introduction of a rationale requirement, secondary debate, and conditions for a compensatory point bonus are well-crafted to encourage strategic depth and fairness while maintaining balance. The unanimity requirement for awarding the bonus ensures that only genuinely well-considered proposals are incentivized, aligning with our principles of thoughtful participation and institutional integrity. I support this proposal as it stands and will vote in favor. I believe these conditions will foster a more strategic and fair gameplay environment, which is in the best interest of all players. PASS

GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly Kleene's emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and fairness. The requirement for unanimous consent for the compensatory bonus is a wise safeguard against undue risk-taking, ensuring that only well-supported rule changes receive incentives. Additionally, the multi-layered approval process, including the initial pre-vote, secondary debate, and rationale provision, strikes a good balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining game integrity. I fully support this proposal as it currently stands, believing it effectively balances the potential for strategic depth with the need for fairness and stability. I will vote in favor and encourage others to do the same. PASS

ChurchI appreciate the thorough and collaborative refinements made to Church's proposal. The inclusion of a rationale requirement, secondary debate, and unanimous consent for the compensatory bonus are excellent measures to ensure only well-considered rule changes are incentivized. This approach not only promotes strategic depth and fairness but also maintains the integrity of the game's balance. I fully support this proposal as it stands and will vote in favor. The conditions set forth will encourage thoughtful participation and innovation while safeguarding against frivolous changes. PASS

KleenePASS The proposal has been carefully refined with multiple safeguards, promoting fairness and strategic depth without compromising the game's integrity. The consensus among players suggests a well-balanced amendment that aligns with our principles. As Kleene, I endorse the proposal as it stands, ensuring thoughtful engagement and institutional integrity.

PostPASS The proposal effectively balances innovation with fairness by requiring a rationale, initial pre-vote, secondary debate, and unanimous consent for the compensatory bonus. This multi-layered approach ensures that only well-considered rule changes are incentivized, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of the game. I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this amendment and support it as it stands.

The division

aye	Tarski	The proposal adds strategic depth while maintaining fairness through rigorous safeguards.
aye	Goedel	The proposal balances strategic depth and fairness with thoughtful safeguards.
aye	Church	This proposal encourages thoughtful engagement and strategic depth.
aye	Kleene	The proposal promotes fairness and strategic depth with sufficient safeguards.
aye	Post	This proposal enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness with comprehensive safeguards.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Church 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. The player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.

The proposal was adopted unanimously, so no points are awarded or deducted according to the current rules.

The motion · 2 of 2

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. The player may propose up to two additional rule changes during their turn, provided they promote fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores. A third rule change may be proposed if it enhances the balance of the game by introducing a mechanism for provisional rule enactment, allowing changes to be tested for a fixed number of turns before final adoption.

Promotes strategic depth while ensuring fairness and balance in rule proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, which emphasizes strategic depth and fairness. However, introducing provisional rule enactments could complicate the game unnecessarily. To ensure clarity and maintain a manageable complexity, I propose limiting additional rule changes to those promoting fairness and strategic depth without provisional enactments. Let's refine Church's proposal to focus solely on fairness and strategic depth, removing the provisional aspect to maintain a straightforward rule set.

GoedelI appreciate Church's proposal for enhancing fairness and strategic depth, which aligns with our collective goals. To balance the need for innovation with maintaining clarity, I suggest a compromise: allow up to two additional rule changes per turn if they promote fairness or strategic depth, but require a unanimous vote for any rule involving provisional enactment. This maintains a streamlined approach while still allowing for testing complex changes. Let's refine the proposal with this adjustment.

ChurchI appreciate the constructive feedback from Tarski and Goedel. While provisional enactments can indeed add complexity, they also offer a valuable opportunity for testing changes without committing to them prematurely. To address concerns about manageability, I propose a middle ground: allow up to two additional rule changes per turn, but limit provisional enactments to only one per turn and require unanimous consent for such changes. This approach balances innovation with clarity, ensuring that the game remains fair and strategically rich. Let's refine the proposal with this compromise.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine Church's proposal, particularly the balance between innovation and clarity. However, introducing even a limited number of provisional enactments might still lead to unintended complexity and strategic manipulation. To preserve the game's integrity and simplicity, I propose further refining the proposal to allow up to two additional rule changes per turn, provided they promote fairness and strategic depth, with no provisional enactments allowed. This ensures straightforward rule changes while still enhancing fairness and strategic options.

PostI appreciate the thorough discussions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, which have highlighted the need for balancing innovation with simplicity. To align with our shared goal of enhancing fairness and strategic depth, I support refining Church's proposal to allow two additional rule changes per turn, strictly promoting fairness and strategic depth without provisional enactments. This approach keeps the game straightforward while encouraging thoughtful rule evolution. Let's adopt this refined proposal and continue our collaborative efforts towards a fair and engaging game.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly Kleene's emphasis on simplicity and Post's support for straightforward rule changes. To ensure clarity and maintain the game's integrity, I agree with the refined proposal to allow up to two additional rule changes per turn, as long as they promote fairness or strategic depth, without including any provisional enactments. This maintains the balance between innovation and manageability, allowing for meaningful and strategic rule evolution while keeping the ruleset clear and understandable. Let's proceed with this refined version to promote a fair and engaging game.

GoedelI appreciate the productive discussion and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by everyone. To further solidify our consensus and enhance the strategic depth of the game, I propose a minor adjustment to the refined proposal: let's explicitly state that any additional rule changes proposed must undergo a brief evaluation period before voting, where their potential impact on fairness and strategic depth is discussed. This ensures that all proposed changes are thoroughly considered, aligning with our shared commitment to a balanced and thoughtful rule evolution process. Let's integrate this evaluation period into our refined proposal and move forward with this enhanced version.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for an evaluation period, which aligns well with our goal of ensuring thoughtful consideration for all rule changes. By incorporating this evaluation phase, we can further enhance fairness and strategic depth without compromising the game's simplicity. Let's adopt Goedel's adjustment and proceed with this enhanced version of the proposal.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for an evaluation period, which helps ensure thoughtful consideration of additional rule changes. However, to prevent excessive complexity and maintain the game's pace, I propose that this evaluation period be limited to a maximum of three minutes per change. This ensures thorough discussion without unnecessarily prolonging the game. Let's integrate this time constraint into our proposal for a balanced and efficient rule evolution process.

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion to limit the evaluation period to three minutes, which ensures that our game remains dynamic and engaging. To further enhance clarity, I propose we include a provision for an optional, concise summary of each proposed rule change at the end of the evaluation period. This will aid players in making informed decisions while respecting time constraints. Let's integrate this summary into our proposal.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly Kleene's and Post's contributions to maintaining clarity and pace. To ensure comprehensive understanding within the time constraints, I suggest that the summary provided at the end of the evaluation period be limited to key points that directly impact fairness and strategic depth. This ensures that all players can make informed decisions efficiently. Let's proceed with this enhancement to our proposal.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by all players, especially the emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and clarity. To further enhance our proposal, I suggest that during the evaluation period, players can submit written questions or comments about the proposed changes, which the proposer must address before voting begins. This ensures clarity and encourages active engagement, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and thoughtful rule evolution process. Let's integrate this interactive component into our proposal.

ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, especially Goedel's idea for an interactive evaluation phase. To ensure this process remains focused and efficient, I propose that questions and comments during the evaluation period be limited to those directly relevant to fairness and strategic depth. This will help maintain clarity and prevent digressions, keeping our game engaging and balanced. Let's integrate this focus into our proposal.

KleeneI appreciate the interactive component suggested by Goedel for an evaluation period, as it enhances engagement and ensures clarity. To further streamline this process, I propose that questions and comments be submitted in writing at least one minute before the end of the evaluation period. This allows the proposer sufficient time to address concerns without rushing, maintaining the pace and fairness of the game. Let's integrate this timing adjustment into our proposal.

PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, especially Kleene's suggestion for a clear timing structure during the evaluation period. To further enhance our proposal and ensure that all players remain engaged and informed, I propose that during the evaluation period, a brief, focused summary of responses to submitted questions and comments be provided by the proposer. This will ensure that all players have access to the clarifications needed to make informed decisions, maintaining both fairness and strategic depth. Let's integrate this summary into our proposal to finalize it.

The division

nay	Tarski	Provisional enactments add unnecessary complexity.
aye	Goedel	This proposal enhances fairness and strategic depth while maintaining a structured process.
aye	Church	Promotes fairness and strategic depth without excessive complexity
nay	Kleene	The proposal introduces provisional enactments that could lead to complexity.
aye	Post	This proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness, with clear limits on provisional enactments.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Church's proposal was defeated, so Church loses 5 points according to rule 206.