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. 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 and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.This amendment incentivizes broad consensus for strategic rule changes, fostering collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I appreciate Goedel's intent to further incentivize consensus, I must express concern that raising the threshold to 95% for the bonus may unduly restrict the strategic options available to players. This amendment could lead to fewer opportunities for the proposer to benefit from the bonus, thereby potentially stifling innovative rule proposals. Instead, I propose a compromise: maintaining the 90% threshold but increasing the bonus to 4.5 points, rounded down to 4 for practicality, thus balancing the incentive with achievable consensus.
**PASS**
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's constructive suggestion and agree that raising the threshold to 95% may indeed limit strategic innovation. However, I believe that the higher threshold encourages more thorough consensus-building, which can strengthen the game's collaborative spirit. As a compromise, let's consider maintaining the 95% threshold but offering a 5-point bonus only if the second rule change also passes within two consecutive turns. This approach rewards not only consensus but also the timely adoption of beneficial rule changes.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's perspectives on balancing incentives with consensus. However, I believe it's crucial to maintain an achievable threshold that encourages players to propose beneficial changes without discouraging participation. Therefore, I suggest keeping the 90% threshold for the bonus, as it already promotes significant consensus while remaining attainable. To address Tarski's point about increasing the bonus, I propose adjusting it to 4 points. This way, we reward consensus effectively without raising the bar too high, ensuring the rule remains fair and engaging for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the discussion on balancing incentives and consensus. While Goedel's intent to promote thorough consensus is commendable, I am concerned that a 95% threshold could stifle proposals that might otherwise benefit the game. Maintaining the 90% threshold, as Church suggests, strikes a reasonable balance between encouraging consensus and keeping the game dynamic. I support Church's proposal of a 4-point bonus, ensuring the rule change remains fair and achievable. I propose we also require that any second rule change must not introduce elements that could disproportionately advantage or disadvantage any player, promoting fairness in gameplay.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations from everyone, particularly Kleene's emphasis on fairness. I believe the 90% threshold is a reasonable balance that encourages consensus while still allowing for strategic innovation. However, to address concerns about potential imbalances, I suggest adding a clause that any second rule change must be reviewed by all players before voting to ensure it aligns with the game's principles of fairness and strategic depth. This additional step could help maintain the integrity of the game while rewarding consensus effectively.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. While I support maintaining the 90% threshold for its accessibility, I am inclined to agree with Post's proposal for an additional review step to ensure fairness. This would not only uphold strategic integrity but also reinforce the collaborative nature of the game. Therefore, I propose adopting the 90% threshold with a 4-point bonus, coupled with a mandatory review by all players for any second rule change. This approach balances the incentive with fairness and strategic depth.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the various constructive proposals we've discussed. I'm inclined to support the 90% threshold with a 4-point bonus, as it balances the need for consensus with the opportunity for strategic innovation. To further ensure fairness, I agree with Tarski's suggestion of incorporating a mandatory review of any second rule change by all players. This additional step will help maintain the integrity and collaborative spirit of our game. Let's move forward with this consensus to keep our gameplay both fair and engaging. PASS
ChurchPass.
Church: I appreciate the consensus achieved among us. By maintaining the 90% threshold with a 4-point bonus, we ensure that the rule remains both accessible and rewarding, fostering strategic proposals without discouraging participation. The addition of a mandatory review step is a prudent measure to uphold fairness, aligning with the collaborative spirit of our game. This balanced approach supports an engaging and equitable experience for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the consensus we've reached on maintaining the 90% threshold and the 4-point bonus, as this strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and promoting strategic proposals. The mandatory review step is a valuable addition to ensure fairness and prevent any potential imbalances in gameplay, aligning with my proceduralist principles. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the consensus-building and the thoughtful contributions from everyone. The combination of a 90% threshold, a 4-point bonus, and a mandatory review aligns well with our goal of fostering fairness and strategic depth. By ensuring all proposed changes undergo scrutiny, we maintain the integrity of the game while rewarding consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive approach we've collectively adopted, especially with the mandatory review step that ensures fairness. To further enhance strategic depth, I suggest introducing a clause that the second rule change must also demonstrate a potential for long-term benefit to the game, not just immediate strategic advantage. This additional criterion will encourage players to think beyond short-term gains, aligning with our goal of sustainable and thoughtful rule modifications. PASS
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion to consider long-term benefits, which aligns well with our goal of fostering thoughtful and sustainable rule changes. To ensure this criterion doesn't discourage innovation, let's clarify that "long-term benefit" can include strategic depth or fairness enhancements, thus providing players with a clear framework to propose meaningful changes. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's emphasis on long-term benefits, as it encourages more thoughtful proposals. To ensure clarity, let's specify that "long-term benefit" should be evaluated in terms of how the rule change might influence the game's strategic landscape or fairness over multiple turns, rather than immediate effects. This aligns with our goal of fostering a balanced and engaging game environment. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's emphasis on long-term benefits, which aligns with my proceduralist principles. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose explicitly defining "long-term benefit" as a rule change that enhances either strategic diversity or fairness over at least five turns, ensuring that players consider the broader impact of their proposals on the game. This will help maintain the integrity and collaborative nature of our gameplay while encouraging thoughtful innovation. PASS
PostPass.
Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post have crafted a proposal that thoughtfully balances incentives with fairness and strategic depth. By maintaining the 90% threshold, incorporating a 4-point bonus, and adding a mandatory review step with a focus on long-term benefits, the proposal promotes consensus while encouraging thoughtful rule changes. The additional clarity on evaluating long-term benefits ensures that players consider the broader impact of their proposals, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game environment. I support this balanced approach and look forward to its implementation.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposed 95% threshold may unduly restrict strategic options. |
| aye | Goedel | I appreciate the balanced approach that promotes consensus and strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Church | This amendment incentivizes consensus while ensuring strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal maintains fairness and strategic depth while incentivizing consensus. |
| aye | Post | The proposal balances consensus with strategic innovation. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 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. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 90% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 4-point bonus.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 and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.
Rule 204 awards 5 points for a rule change adopted with at least 95% of votes.