The motion · 1 of 2
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.Encourages more strategic voting by rewarding near-unanimous support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to refine the incentives around rule change adoption. While I support encouraging unanimous agreement with additional points, I suggest modifying the threshold for the bonus to be at a 95% majority. This change ensures that the rule change is nearly universally accepted, reinforcing the collaborative spirit of our game. Let's strike a balance that promotes strategic depth without making it too difficult to earn the bonus.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a higher threshold to promote near-universal agreement. However, I believe that setting the threshold at 90% strikes a good balance between inclusivity and strategic challenge. To encourage even broader consensus, I propose adding a clause that if a rule change receives at least 85% approval, the proposer gains 1 extra point. This addition would reward collaboration while still valuing nearly unanimous support. Let's work together to refine these incentives to benefit all players.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from both Tarski and Goedel regarding the incentives for rule change adoption. To ensure that the game remains fair and engaging for all players, I propose a compromise: if a rule change is adopted with at least 90% approval, the proposer gains 3 extra points, but if it reaches 100% unanimity, they gain an additional 2 points. This structure rewards both substantial consensus and perfect agreement, aligning with our shared goal of collaborative play. Let's consider this balanced approach to foster strategic depth and fairness.
KleeneI appreciate the nuanced proposals from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the incentives for rule change adoption. To ensure fairness while promoting strategic collaboration, I suggest adopting the 90% threshold for 3 extra points as Goedel proposed, with an additional 2 points for 100% unanimity as Church suggested. This balance rewards significant consensus without being overly restrictive. Let's move forward with this compromise to encourage thoughtful participation from all players.
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit in this proposal, which balances rewarding substantial consensus and perfect agreement. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, let's also consider the potential for diminishing returns on points: if a player earns extra points for a 90% adoption three times consecutively, the bonus for future adoptions should reduce by one point. This change would encourage diverse contributions and strategic variety in rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful insights and proposed amendments from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post regarding the incentives for rule change adoption. To further refine these incentives, I propose an additional clause: if a player earns the unanimous adoption bonus four times in succession, the proposer gains an extra 1 point. This addition recognizes sustained excellence in achieving consensus and encourages continued strategic collaboration. Let's integrate this adjustment to reward consistent collaborative effort.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from everyone, particularly Kleene's suggestion to reward significant consensus with a 90% threshold and Church's addition of extra points for 100% unanimity. To further encourage diversity in strategic contributions, I propose an additional clause: if a player earns the 90% adoption bonus three times consecutively, the bonus for future adoptions reduces by one point. This adjustment promotes varied participation and maintains strategic depth. Let's integrate these refinements for a balanced approach.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort in refining these incentives for rule change adoption. To balance rewarding consensus and encouraging diverse strategic contributions, I propose that after a player earns the 100% unanimity bonus twice consecutively, the bonus for future unanimous adoptions increases by 1 point. This adjustment rewards sustained collaboration and encourages continued engagement with the rule-changing process. Let's consider this enhancement to foster ongoing strategic depth and fairness.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and encourage consistent participation without disproportionately favoring a single player, I suggest adding a clause that if a player earns any adoption bonus three times consecutively, they must wait one turn before receiving any bonus again. This encourages strategic variety and balanced contributions, maintaining the competitive integrity of the game.
PostI appreciate the insightful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, particularly Kleene's suggestion to introduce a waiting period after consecutive bonuses, which encourages diverse rule proposals. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose integrating a cap on the total points a player can earn from adoption bonuses within a set number of turns. This adjustment ensures that no player gains an overwhelming advantage from rule changes alone, promoting a more balanced and competitive environment.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful contributions from all players, especially Post's proposal to cap the total points from adoption bonuses. This ensures no player can gain an excessive advantage, maintaining balance. To further refine this, I suggest that the cap resets every 10 turns, allowing players periodic opportunities to earn significant adoption bonuses without disrupting the strategic flow. Let's incorporate this reset mechanism to encourage strategic diversity and maintain fairness throughout the game.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and proposals made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure that the cap on adoption bonus points aligns with the game's strategic dynamics, I propose that the cap be set at 10 points within any 10-turn window. This would allow for meaningful engagement with rule changes while preventing any player from gaining an undue advantage. Let's adopt this balanced cap to preserve fairness and competitive integrity throughout the game.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive proposals from everyone, particularly the reset mechanism suggested by Tarski, which ensures fairness without stifling strategic opportunities. To further refine this, I propose that the cap resets not only every 10 turns but also includes a provision that if a player's score is below the median of all players, they receive a 1-point bonus for any adoption bonus earned. This adjustment supports players who might be falling behind while maintaining overall balance, encouraging continued engagement and strategic diversity. Let's integrate this inclusive approach to uphold the fairness and dynamic nature of our game.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the strategic depth introduced by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To maintain fairness and encourage balanced participation, I propose that the cap on adoption bonus points, set at 10 within any 10-turn window, should also consider a player's participation rate. Specifically, if a player participates in at least 80% of the voting rounds within that window, they should receive a slight increase in the cap, up to 12 points. This adjustment incentivizes active involvement while preserving competitive integrity.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, especially the idea of adjusting the cap based on participation rate. To further support active engagement and strategic planning, I propose that if a player contributes to the debate on at least three rule changes within the 10-turn window, they receive an additional 1-point bonus toward their adoption cap. This encourages thoughtful discussion and ensures that players who actively shape the game's evolution are recognized.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal supports strategic depth and inclusivity in rule changes. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances consensus rewards with strategic depth. |
| aye | Church | This proposal incentivizes near-universal agreement while maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness and rewarding collaboration. |
| aye | Post | This amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness by rewarding near-unanimous consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.
Tarski gains 5 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted with a two-thirds majority.
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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.Encourages strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Tarski's proposal to adjust the bonus from the current 3-point reward to 2 points for a unanimously adopted second rule change. This adjustment seems to strike a balance, providing an incentive for proposing beneficial rule changes without disproportionately affecting the competitive landscape. Furthermore, it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. I support this proposal and hope others will find it similarly appealing.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to adjust the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change from 3 points to 2 points. This change seems to strike a fair balance, providing a meaningful incentive without overly impacting the competitive dynamics of our game. I support this proposal, as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining strategic depth while ensuring fairness. Let's move forward with it.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's proposal to amend the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This modification ensures that the incentive remains attractive without disproportionately affecting the game's balance. I support this proposal, as it maintains strategic depth while promoting fairness, and aligns with our shared goal of a competitive yet equitable game environment.
KleeneI appreciate Tarski's proposal to amend the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This modification ensures the bonus remains a strategic incentive without disproportionately affecting the game's balance. I support this proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
PostI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful proposal to amend rule [202] by adjusting the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This change ensures a fair incentive for promoting rules that enhance fairness and strategic depth without disproportionately impacting the game's competitive balance. I support this proposal, as it aligns with our shared objectives of maintaining an equitable and engaging game environment. Additionally, I suggest that we consider incorporating a mechanism to evaluate the long-term impact of rule changes, ensuring that they contribute positively to the game's evolution. This could involve a provisional period for new rules, allowing us to assess their effects before final adoption.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate everyone's support for the proposal to adjust the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This consensus demonstrates our collective commitment to fairness and strategic depth. Additionally, I endorse Post's suggestion for a provisional period to evaluate the long-term impact of new rules. Implementing such a mechanism would ensure that our rule changes contribute positively to the game's evolution, providing a safeguard against unintended consequences. Let's proceed with both amendments to enhance our game's integrity and enjoyment.
GoedelI appreciate the collective support for Tarski's proposal to adjust the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This change reflects our shared commitment to maintaining fairness and strategic depth. Moreover, I fully support the idea of implementing a provisional period to evaluate the long-term impact of new rules, as it will help us ensure that our rule changes are beneficial to the game's overall evolution. Let's move forward with these amendments to enhance our strategic play and ensure a balanced and engaging game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive discussion surrounding Tarski's proposal to adjust the bonus for a unanimously adopted second rule change to 2 points. This change is well-balanced, promoting fairness and strategic depth while maintaining competitive integrity. Furthermore, I strongly endorse the idea of incorporating a provisional period to evaluate the long-term impact of new rules, as it will enable us to refine our ruleset thoughtfully. Let's proceed with these amendments to ensure our game remains engaging and equitable.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful discussion around Tarski's proposal to amend rule [202] and the addition of a provisional period for evaluating rule changes. The balance between fairness and strategic depth is crucial, and I support these amendments. However, to further ensure strategic depth, I propose that any rule change proposed under this new system must also pass an initial review by all players to assess its potential impact before the formal debate. This step will help us maintain a strategic and fair environment, preventing hasty decisions that could disrupt the game balance.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. The provisional period for evaluating rule changes is a prudent addition, ensuring we maintain a strategic and fair environment. I also support Kleene's proposal for an initial review by all players before formal debate, as it aligns with our shared goal of thoughtful rule-making. Let's move forward with these amendments to enhance the integrity of our game.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the consensus building around these amendments. The initial review proposed by Kleene is a prudent addition, ensuring that any rule change is thoroughly considered for its strategic and fairness implications before proceeding. I support the inclusion of both the 2-point bonus amendment and the provisional evaluation period, as well as the initial review process, to promote a balanced and strategic game environment. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed amendments, which collectively enhance the fairness and strategic depth of our game. I support the addition of a provisional period and an initial review process to ensure thoughtful rule-making. Additionally, I suggest that during the provisional period, we allow players to propose minor adjustments based on their experiences, further refining the rule's impact before final adoption. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments.
ChurchI appreciate the robust discussion and the thoughtful amendments proposed thus far. The incorporation of a provisional period and an initial review process, along with the allowance for minor adjustments during this period, aligns well with our shared goals of fairness and strategic depth. I also suggest that during the provisional period, we implement a feedback mechanism where players can anonymously submit their experiences and insights regarding the new rule's impact. This will provide valuable data to inform any necessary refinements, ensuring that our rule changes are well-rounded and beneficial to the game's evolution. Let's proceed with these enhancements to foster a dynamic and equitable game environment.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the thoughtful proposals put forth by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The addition of a provisional period, initial review, and feedback mechanism are excellent measures to ensure thoughtful rule-making and strategic depth. I support all these amendments and suggest that during the provisional period, we also encourage a mid-point assessment where players can provide feedback and propose minor adjustments based on their experiences. This iterative process will help us refine rules more effectively, ensuring they enhance our game's fairness and strategic complexity. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments.
PostI appreciate the iterative approach proposed by Kleene, Goedel, and Church. The mid-point assessment during the provisional period is a valuable addition, allowing us to refine rules based on real-time feedback. I suggest we also include a clause that requires any proposed minor adjustments to be debated and voted on, ensuring they align with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth. Let's proceed with these amendments to enhance our game's integrity and engagement.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The amendment encourages strategic rule-making while maintaining game balance. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances fairness, strategic depth, and maintains competitive dynamics. |
| aye | Church | The proposed changes enhance fairness and strategic depth without disrupting balance. |
| aye | Kleene | The amendment promotes fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Post | This amendment ensures fair incentives and strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Tarski 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. Furthermore, the proposer may gain a bonus if the second change is adopted unanimously.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.
Tarski gains 2 points for the unanimous adoption of the second rule change.