The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a mechanism for collaborative bonus points if all players complete a specific action sequence within a single turn. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 4 points, and each participant in the sequence gains 2 points. The action sequence and associated bonus points must be agreed upon by all players during the proposal phase.Encourages teamwork and strategic collaboration among players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the innovative approach proposed by Goedel, aiming to enhance collaboration among players. However, I propose a minor amendment to ensure clarity and fairness: the specific action sequence must be documented and agreed upon before the proposal is voted on, to prevent any misunderstanding or strategic ambiguity. This amendment will facilitate a transparent and equitable application of the rule. If agreed, I would be willing to support Goedel's proposal with this addition.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful amendment for clarity and transparency. To further ensure fairness and encourage collaboration, I suggest adding that the action sequence must be completed within three turns of its agreement. This addition aims to motivate timely and strategic cooperation among players. If this amendment is agreed upon, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these enhancements.
ChurchI appreciate the constructive amendments proposed by Tarski and Goedel, which aim to enhance transparency and encourage timely collaboration. To further ensure fairness and strategic engagement, I suggest an additional requirement that the action sequence must be documented and publicly shared before the proposal vote. This will help maintain integrity and prevent any post-agreement modifications. If this amendment is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the enhancements proposed by Tarski and Goedel, as well as Church's focus on transparency and strategic engagement. To further ensure fairness and prevent any potential manipulation, I suggest adding a stipulation that the proposed action sequence cannot directly affect the proposer's score or turn order, maintaining an impartial framework for collaboration. If this amendment is agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, which collectively enhance the clarity, transparency, and fairness of Goedel's proposal. To further ensure an equitable playing field and encourage meaningful collaboration, I suggest an additional amendment: the action sequence must be unanimously agreed upon by all players before the proposal phase, and a neutral arbitrator (to be chosen from among us, if necessary, by unanimous consent) should oversee the agreement process and the subsequent completion of the sequence. This will help maintain the integrity of the collaborative effort and prevent any unilateral advantage. If these additions are agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with these final refinements.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further refine this proposal and ensure an equitable and strategic gameplay environment, I suggest adding that the action sequence must not only be unanimously agreed upon but also require a minimum of five distinct actions to qualify for the bonus points. This will encourage more comprehensive collaboration and strategic planning among players. If this additional layer of complexity is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with this final refinement.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive enhancements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure strategic engagement and prevent potential stagnation, I suggest adding that the proposed action sequence must be completed within a maximum of five turns from its agreement. This will encourage prompt and dynamic cooperation while maintaining the integrity of the game. If this condition is incorporated, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure fairness and engagement, I suggest adding that the action sequence must not directly or indirectly alter the turn order, thus maintaining the integrity of the gameplay and ensuring that the collaboration is centered around the spirit of cooperation rather than strategic manipulation. If this amendment is agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with this additional safeguard.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's clarity, fairness, and collaborative spirit. To further ensure the integrity of the process and prevent any potential for undue influence or advantage, I suggest adding a stipulation that any player who has proposed a rule change within the last three turns cannot act as the neutral arbitrator in overseeing the agreement process. This will help maintain the impartiality of the arbitration and encourage a broader sense of trust and cooperation among all players. If this amendment is accepted, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these final adjustments.
PostI appreciate the detailed refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To further ensure equitable participation, I suggest adding that the neutral arbitrator must be confirmed by a separate unanimous vote among all players, ensuring full consensus and trust in their impartiality. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the detailed and strategic refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure clarity and prevent potential disputes, I suggest adding that if the agreed action sequence is not completed within the specified timeframe, no points shall be awarded, and the sequence will reset, requiring a new agreement among players. With this final safeguard, I support Goedel's proposal.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's fairness and collaborative potential. To further ensure clarity and prevent any ambiguity during the proposal phase, I suggest adding a stipulation that the agreed action sequence must be explicitly outlined in the proposal text, leaving no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. With this additional clarification, I support Goedel's proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to refine Goedel's proposal into a fair and strategic rule change. To further ensure transparency and prevent any potential for confusion or manipulation, I suggest adding a requirement for a brief public discussion phase following the unanimous agreement on the action sequence, allowing all players to express any concerns or seek clarifications before finalizing the proposal. This will help maintain the integrity of the collaboration and ensure that all players are fully informed and in agreement with the terms. If this addition is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with this final enhancement.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To ensure the spirit of collaboration remains intact and to prevent any potential for strategic manipulation, I suggest adding that the action sequence must incorporate at least one action that requires direct cooperation between at least two players. This will encourage genuine teamwork and strategic interaction, aligning with the collaborative intent of the rule. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have greatly enhanced the fairness and collaborative potential of Goedel's proposal. To further ensure that the proposed rule change aligns with the spirit of collaboration and strategic engagement, I suggest adding that the action sequence must be revisited and potentially revised after every five uses, to adapt to the evolving dynamics of the game and maintain its relevance and challenge. This will encourage ongoing strategic innovation and adaptability among players, ensuring the collaborative mechanism remains fresh and engaging. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This rule fosters collaboration and aligns with strategic goals. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal encourages strategic collaboration and has been refined for clarity and fairness. |
| aye | Church | This proposal encourages collaboration and strategic play. |
| aye | Kleene | It fosters collaboration without unfairly benefiting the proposer. |
| aye | Post | This proposal enhances collaboration and strategic engagement, aligning with reformist principles. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 4 points to the proposer if a rule change is adopted with at least 95% of votes, which is the case here.