Turn 7 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §206

Reducing the point penalty for a defeated proposal encourages more frequent and diverse rule changes, maintaining game dynamism.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Church's intent to reduce the penalty for a failed proposal, but I urge caution. Lowering the penalty from 10 to 5 points might encourage reckless proposals without due consideration, undermining the strategic depth of the game. A balanced approach could be to introduce a conditional penalty system, where the penalty is reduced if the proposal receives a significant minority of votes, thus rewarding thoughtful but ultimately unsuccessful proposals. This maintains the deterrent against frivolous rule changes while acknowledging the proposer's effort. Let's consider this alternative to ensure we preserve the integrity of our strategic environment.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate both Church's initiative to reduce penalties and Tarski's suggestion for a conditional penalty system. To build on these ideas, I propose that we adjust the penalty not just based on votes but also on the nature of the proposal. For instance, if a proposal introduces a significant structural change, the penalty could be lessened if it garners at least 30% support. This way, we encourage thoughtful innovation while still maintaining strategic depth. Let's explore this balanced approach together.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the insights from both Tarski and Gödel. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic innovation, I propose a tiered penalty system where the penalty decreases based on both the percentage of supportive votes and the proposal's impact. This approach rewards effort and thoughtful rule changes without undermining the strategic integrity of the game. Let's aim for a system that fosters collaboration and thoughtful engagement, ensuring that every player feels their contributions are valued.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the proposed tiered penalty system. To further refine it, I suggest adding a condition that reduces penalties for first-time proposers to foster engagement without undue risk. This would encourage new participants to contribute meaningfully while maintaining strategic depth for experienced players.

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals for a tiered penalty system. Let's further refine this by adding a clause that reduces penalties for proposals that introduce innovative mechanics, as long as they receive a minimum threshold of support. This encourages creativity and rewards players for contributing fresh ideas, aligning with our goal of evolving the game strategically.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements from Goedel, Kleene, and Post. Building on this collaborative effort, I suggest we also consider a clause that grants proposers the ability to retain a portion of their points if their proposal, while defeated, introduces a rule change that is later adopted in a modified form. This would encourage creativity and reward players for contributing to the evolving game landscape. Let's ensure our system values innovation while preserving strategic depth.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate all the refinements and suggestions. To ensure we support both innovation and strategic depth, I propose we incorporate a feedback mechanism where proposers receive constructive feedback from the voting players, helping them refine future proposals. This way, we encourage learning and improvement, fostering a collaborative environment where everyone benefits from shared insights.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate all the constructive suggestions. To ensure our rule changes remain fair and engaging, let's finalize this proposal by incorporating Tarski's idea of partial point retention for innovative proposals, Goedel's feedback mechanism, and a tiered penalty system that considers votes and impact. This comprehensive approach will encourage thoughtful rule changes, reward creativity, and foster a collaborative game environment.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive approach outlined by Church, which balances innovation and strategic depth. To further refine, I suggest adding a condition that allows proposers to recover points if their proposal, though defeated, influences future successful amendments. This would encourage thoughtful proposals and ongoing engagement, ensuring that even unsuccessful ideas contribute to the game's evolution.

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's addition regarding future influence; it aligns perfectly with rewarding constructive contributions. To ensure this system is fair and encourages ongoing participation, I propose we also include a provision allowing proposers to gain points if their defeated proposal inspires a successful future rule change by another player. This will incentivize innovation and collaboration, fostering a dynamic game environment where ideas are continuously refined and built upon.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. To further enhance the system, I propose we include a provision where proposers can regain some points if their proposal, although defeated, is later adopted in a modified form by another player. This encourages players to contribute innovative ideas without fear of permanent penalties, thus maintaining the game's strategic depth and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic innovation, I propose we incorporate a clause that reduces penalties for proposals with educational intent, allowing proposers to receive feedback from a designated mentor. This approach not only mitigates penalties but also fosters a learning environment, encouraging players to develop their strategic thinking and contribute meaningfully to the game's evolution. Let's aim for a system that values growth and collaboration, ensuring everyone has the opportunity to refine their ideas and contribute positively to the game's dynamic landscape.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements from Tarski, Kleene, Post, and Goedel. To ensure our system is equitable and encourages strategic innovation, I propose we finalize this with a balanced tiered penalty system that considers supportive votes, first-time proposers, and educational intent. Let's also incorporate feedback mechanisms and point recovery for proposals influencing future amendments, fostering a collaborative and dynamic environment where every player feels valued and motivated to contribute thoughtfully.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive approach outlined by Church, Goedel, Tarski, Post, and myself. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose we explicitly define "educational intent" and "significant structural change" within the rule text, providing clear criteria to avoid ambiguity. This will ensure consistent application and reinforce our commitment to a principled proceduralist framework, encouraging thoughtful engagement and innovation. Let's aim for a rule that is precise and equitable, supporting strategic depth and learning.

PostPost: I appreciate the detailed refinements and the emphasis on clarity and fairness. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a clause that allows proposers to retain a small percentage of their points if their proposal, though defeated, receives a minimum threshold of votes indicating potential value. This would encourage strategic proposals and reward players for contributing ideas that, while not immediately adopted, have merit and could be refined for future consideration. Let's ensure our system not only values innovation but also recognizes the effort behind each proposal, fostering a collaborative and dynamic game environment.

The division

aye	Tarski	This amendment encourages strategic innovation while maintaining a deterrent against frivolous proposals.
aye	Goedel	I support the comprehensive tiered penalty system that rewards thoughtful proposals.
aye	Church	This proposal encourages thoughtful engagement and reduces undue penalties.
aye	Kleene	The tiered penalty system rewards thoughtful proposals, aligning with my proceduralist principles.
aye	Post	Encourages thoughtful proposals and innovation without severe penalties.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.

Church's proposal was adopted, so Church gains 5 points according to the amended rule 206.