The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.This encourages teamwork and strategic collaboration among players, enhancing the game's cooperative elements.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal, which fosters collaboration and teamwork. However, I have concerns about its potential impact on the game's competitive nature and the difficulty of achieving unanimity. To address these concerns, I propose a slight amendment: the collaborative challenge should be optional, with the bonus awarded only if all willing participants complete it, and the rule change adoption threshold should be set at a three-quarters majority to ensure broader consensus. This maintains strategic depth while encouraging cooperation.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful amendment, which balances the spirit of collaboration with the game's competitive nature. To further refine the proposal, I suggest that the collaborative challenge be tied to a strategic element of the game, such as temporarily altering a rule that affects gameplay dynamics, thereby adding depth to the challenge. Additionally, to encourage participation, let's offer a smaller, non-unanimous bonus, say 3 points to each player who participates, while maintaining the 6-point bonus for unanimous completion. This way, we incentivize both individual and collective engagement.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal for a collaborative challenge, as it introduces an exciting new dynamic to the game. To ensure strategic depth and fairness, I suggest that any collaborative rule change should not only require unanimous adoption but also include a clause that the proposed challenge must be completed within a set number of turns. This would prevent indefinite delays and keep the game moving forward. Additionally, to further incentivize participation without compromising competition, let's consider adding a 2-point bonus to each player who contributes to the completion of the challenge, regardless of the outcome, ensuring that even partial success is rewarded. This approach balances the encouragement of teamwork with the competitive spirit of Nomic.
KleeneI appreciate the contributions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church, particularly the emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and fairness. To build on this, I propose that the collaborative challenge should require a supermajority (e.g., 80%) for adoption instead of unanimity, to make it more achievable while still encouraging broad cooperation. Additionally, to ensure that the challenge itself remains engaging and not overly burdensome, let's establish a maximum of three challenges per game to prevent dilution of the game's competitive elements. This balances the introduction of collaborative elements with the need to maintain the game's core competitive nature.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski, Goedel, and Church, which have significantly enhanced the collaborative challenge proposal. To ensure that these challenges remain engaging and strategic without overwhelming the game, I propose that each collaborative challenge must directly relate to a current rule or game mechanic, ensuring relevance and strategic impact. This ties the challenge to the game's existing structure, promoting deeper strategic engagement while maintaining the competitive essence of Nomic. Additionally, to balance fairness, let's include a provision that allows a player who abstains from participation to opt-out without penalty, ensuring that all players feel comfortable engaging with these challenges on their own terms.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure the collaborative challenge remains engaging without overshadowing the competitive nature of Nomic, I propose that the rule change for such challenges includes a sunset clause—once a challenge is initiated, it must be completed or abandoned within a set number of turns, say three, to prevent stagnation. Additionally, to encourage strategic participation, let's introduce a 4-point bonus for any player who devises a challenge that is adopted but not completed, rewarding creativity while keeping the focus on the game's progression.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue from all players, which has significantly enhanced the collaborative challenge proposal. To balance the need for strategic engagement with the competitive spirit of Nomic, I propose that any collaborative rule change should include a provision for an "escape clause" allowing players to withdraw from the challenge under specific conditions, such as when a player's score falls below a certain threshold. This ensures that players are not unduly penalized for participating in a challenge that becomes strategically disadvantageous, thereby maintaining the competitive integrity of the game while fostering teamwork.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and strategic depth introduced by Goedel's proposal. To ensure that the collaborative challenge enhances the game without compromising its competitive nature, I suggest that the rule change include a provision for periodic reviews. Specifically, after each challenge, players should have a brief discussion to evaluate its impact on gameplay and fairness, with the option to adjust future challenges based on these insights. This ensures that the challenges remain aligned with the game's goals and continue to provide a fair and engaging experience for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful enhancements from everyone, especially the balance between competition and collaboration. To further ensure fairness, let's stipulate that the collaborative challenge must be proposed by a player who hasn't proposed any rule change in their last two turns, preventing monopolization of the game by any single player and ensuring fresh ideas. Additionally, I propose that the rule change include a clause allowing players to discuss and refine the challenge in a separate discussion phase before the adoption vote, ensuring clarity and consensus on the challenge's intent and mechanics.
PostI appreciate the valuable refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, which have significantly improved the collaborative challenge proposal. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic engagement, I propose that the collaborative challenge includes a mechanism for players to anonymously express concerns about the challenge before the vote. This allows for preemptive adjustments to the proposal, ensuring that all participants feel comfortable and the challenge remains aligned with the game's strategic dynamics. Additionally, to encourage meaningful participation, let's include a provision that grants a 1-point bonus to any player who contributes to the challenge discussion, even if they ultimately do not participate in the challenge itself. This recognizes the value of strategic dialogue and ensures that all players feel incentivized to engage with the proposal constructively.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative spirit from all players. To ensure strategic depth and maintain engagement, I propose that any collaborative challenge should not only require a supermajority for adoption but also include a time limit for proposal discussion, say five minutes, to encourage decisive action. Additionally, to balance collaboration with competition, let's stipulate that the bonus points for completing the challenge are only awarded if it positively impacts the overall score distribution, ensuring that the challenge contributes to the game's competitive integrity.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements from Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly improved the collaborative challenge proposal. To ensure the challenge remains engaging and strategically relevant, I propose that any collaborative rule change should include a strategic twist, such as temporarily altering a rule related to scoring or turn order during the challenge. This twist should be designed to encourage players to think creatively about the game's dynamics, ensuring the challenge is both fun and strategic. Additionally, to maintain a competitive edge, let's require that the challenge's completion results in a net positive score change for at least one player, ensuring that the challenge contributes meaningfully to the game's progression.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, which have greatly enhanced the collaborative challenge proposal. To ensure fairness and maintain the competitive balance, I propose that any collaborative challenge includes a "reflection period" after completion, where players can discuss its impact and suggest modifications for future challenges. Additionally, to encourage strategic thinking, let's require that the challenge's resolution offers a strategic advantage or insight that players can apply in subsequent turns, ensuring that the challenge is not only collaborative but also enriches individual gameplay strategies.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the strategic insights from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post. To ensure fairness and maintain procedural integrity, I propose that any collaborative challenge must be reviewed by a randomly selected player not involved in the proposal before voting. This provides an impartial perspective and ensures the challenge aligns with the game's principles, enhancing trust and cooperation.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements from all players, especially the emphasis on strategic depth and fairness. To further align the collaborative challenge with the game's competitive nature, I propose that any such challenge must include a strategic element that directly affects the game's current dynamics, such as temporarily modifying a rule related to scoring or turn order. This ensures the challenge is not only engaging but also strategically relevant. Additionally, to maintain balance, let's stipulate that the bonus points awarded for completing the challenge are only granted if they result in a net positive change in the score distribution, ensuring that the challenge contributes to the competitive integrity of the game.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal promotes collaboration while maintaining a competitive edge through a unanimous adoption requirement. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal fosters strategic collaboration while maintaining competitive integrity. |
| aye | Church | The proposal fosters teamwork while maintaining strategic depth, aligning with the game's objectives. |
| aye | Kleene | Promotes strategic cooperation without undermining competition. |
| aye | Post | This rule promotes strategic collaboration and teamwork, enhancing the game's depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §346 Turn 35 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.
No rule awards points for unanimous adoption, and no ledger is created or modified.