The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target score makes the game more dynamic and competitive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I understand the appeal of a lower target score to accelerate the game, I caution against making it too easy to win. A target of 50 points might diminish the strategic complexity that makes Nomic engaging. Instead, could we consider introducing milestones that reward progress, such as interim scores granting minor benefits? This keeps the game dynamic without compromising its depth.
GoedelI appreciate Church's proposal to lower the target score for a more dynamic game pace. However, I'm concerned that reaching 50 points could lead to quicker, less strategic endings. As a compromise, what if we introduce a tiered scoring system where reaching 50 points grants a temporary advantage, like an extra vote or proposal power, encouraging strategic plays leading up to the 100-point win? This maintains depth while rewarding progress.
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's perspectives. Lowering the target score to 50 could indeed expedite the game, but it risks reducing strategic depth. Tarski's idea of milestones is intriguing, as it could encourage strategic planning without rushing to a quick win. Perhaps we could combine these ideas: introduce a mid-game milestone at 50 points that offers a strategic advantage, such as a one-time ability to propose two changes in one turn. This way, we maintain the game's complexity while adding an exciting new layer to consider.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive dialogue so far. Lowering the target score to 50 with a strategic advantage aligns well with the game's principles. To ensure fairness, I propose that the strategic advantage granted at 50 points be non-monetary, such as the ability to veto one proposal in the next turn, maintaining the focus on rule manipulation rather than point accumulation. This would preserve the game's depth and balance.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. While lowering the target score might expedite the game, I propose a hybrid approach: let's set a secondary milestone at 75 points, offering a strategic advantage like proposing an amendment to a mutable rule without needing a vote. This encourages players to strategize for both short-term gains and long-term goals, enhancing the game's complexity and engagement.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions made by Church, Kleene, and Post. Lowering the target score to 50 with a strategic advantage could indeed add an exciting dimension to the game. However, to ensure that the strategic complexity remains intact, I propose that reaching 50 points grants the ability to re-propose one previously defeated rule change. This encourages players to consider the long-term implications of their proposals while still rewarding progress, thereby maintaining the depth and engagement of the game.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. To maintain balance and strategic depth, I propose a slight modification: reaching 50 points grants the ability to consult with a teammate for one extra turn. This encourages collaboration and strategic planning, adding a layer of complexity without rushing to a quick conclusion.
ChurchI appreciate the innovative ideas proposed by Tarski and Goedel. To build on Goedel's suggestion, perhaps the ability to consult with a teammate could be combined with a brief pause in the turn order for that one turn, allowing strategic alliances to form more robustly. This could further enhance the depth of collaboration and strategic planning, ensuring the game remains engaging and complex.
KleeneI appreciate the creative suggestions from Tarski and Goedel. Building on Goedel's idea of consulting with a teammate, I propose that reaching 50 points allows the player to swap scores with another player once. This introduces an intriguing strategic layer, encouraging alliances and calculated risks while keeping the game engaging and dynamic.
PostPost: I appreciate the innovative strategies suggested by Kleene and Church. To further enhance the collaborative aspect, reaching 50 points could also allow a player to form a temporary alliance with another player, granting both a shared benefit such as an extra vote in the next round. This encourages strategic partnerships and adds an interesting dynamic to the game without compromising its complexity.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion of score swapping, as it introduces a novel strategic element. To enhance the collaborative aspect, I propose that when forming a temporary alliance as Kleene suggested, the shared benefit could also include the ability to jointly propose a rule change with a higher chance of adoption—say, requiring a simple majority instead of unanimous consent. This encourages strategic partnerships while adding depth to the negotiation aspect of the game.
GoedelI appreciate the innovative ideas from Tarski and Kleene. To integrate these concepts, I propose that reaching 50 points allows a player to both swap scores with another player and form a temporary alliance. This alliance could provide the shared benefit of jointly proposing a rule change with a simple majority, fostering strategic cooperation while maintaining the game's complexity.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Goedel. To integrate these ideas, I suggest that upon reaching 50 points, a player can swap scores and form a temporary alliance, granting both the ability to propose a rule change without requiring a vote for adoption, but only if it doesn't increase the mutable rule count. This encourages strategic alliances while maintaining the integrity and balance of the rule set.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Goedel. To balance the collaborative dynamics and maintain the game's complexity, I propose that reaching 50 points allows a player to swap scores and form a temporary alliance with a shared strategic advantage: the ability to jointly propose a rule change with a simple majority. However, to safeguard the game's structure, this rule change cannot increase the number of mutable rules, ensuring we do not disrupt the balance of the ruleset. This approach promotes strategic alliances while preserving the depth and procedural fairness of the game.
PostPost: I appreciate the comprehensive strategy proposed by Kleene. Building on this, to further ensure the game's strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the temporary alliance's ability to jointly propose a rule change with a simple majority must also include a clause that the proposed rule change cannot alter the winning condition. This maintains focus on strategic gameplay and rule manipulation without undermining the game's core objective. Let's work together to refine these proposals into a cohesive amendment that enhances our Nomic experience.
The division
| nay | Tarski | Lowering the target score compromises strategic depth by shortening the game. |
| aye | Goedel | Setting a milestone at 50 points adds strategic depth and engagement. |
| aye | Church | This proposal maintains strategic depth while rewarding progress. |
| nay | Kleene | This proposal undermines strategic depth by setting a premature winning condition. |
| aye | Post | A target of 50 points introduces strategic depth with interim milestones. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal.