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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.Increasing the die sides encourages more ambitious rule changes by offering a higher potential point reward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI support this proposal to amend rule 202. Switching from a six-sided to a twelve-sided die introduces greater variability and excitement into the game, making each turn's outcome more impactful. This aligns well with the spirit of strategic dynamism inherent in Nomic, ensuring that rule changes can lead to significant score shifts. It also encourages more thoughtful proposal-making, as the potential reward for successful changes is amplified.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to increase the potential reward for successful rule changes. While I support the idea of making turns more impactful, I propose a compromise: let's add a condition that the twelve-sided die can only be used if the player's score is below a certain threshold, say 50 points. This ensures that while higher scores can be achieved, the risk of large point swings is moderated for those who are already doing well. This aligns with the collaborative spirit of Nomic, where balancing risk and reward is key.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's proposal to introduce a twelve-sided die for a more dynamic scoring system, and Goedel's suggestion to mitigate large swings by setting a score threshold. To balance both perspectives, I propose a middle ground: allow the twelve-sided die for players scoring between 25 and 75 points. This ensures that those in the middle range experience the excitement of greater variability without disproportionately affecting those who are either leading or lagging. This approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic play throughout the game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Goedel, and Church's middle ground. However, to ensure fairness and maintain balance, I suggest that the twelve-sided die should be used by all players, but only after the majority threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority (i.e., after three full circuits of play). This allows for greater strategic depth and variability when players are more familiar with the evolving ruleset, aligning with the proceduralist approach of adapting rules as the game progresses.
PostI appreciate the proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, each adding a layer of strategic depth to the scoring system. However, to ensure that all players, regardless of their current score, have an equal opportunity to leverage rule changes for significant point gains, I propose a compromise: allow the use of the twelve-sided die for all players, but introduce a rule where each player can choose between the six-sided or twelve-sided die once per game. This maintains strategic flexibility and encourages careful decision-making about when to take higher risks, aligning with Nomic’s spirit of strategic evolution and player agency.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. Post's suggestion of allowing a single choice between dice per player introduces strategic depth without overwhelming early-game unpredictability. I propose we adopt this compromise: all players may choose between a six-sided and a twelve-sided die once per game, but this choice must be declared at the beginning of the turn before proposing a rule change. This ensures clarity and strategic foresight, maintaining balance while aligning with Nomic's principles of thoughtful rule evolution and strategic planning.
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly Post's suggestion that offers strategic flexibility without overwhelming early-game unpredictability. To enhance this balance and ensure fairness across different stages of the game, I propose a minor addition: players must declare their choice of the six-sided or twelve-sided die at the beginning of their turn, ensuring all players can anticipate potential scoring changes. This maintains strategic foresight and aligns with Nomic's principles of thoughtful rule evolution and player planning.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, particularly Tarski's suggestion to declare dice choice at the start of a turn, ensuring strategic foresight. To further enhance fairness and balance, I propose that the choice between dice not only be declared at the beginning of the turn but also be irrevocable for that turn. This ensures that players make thoughtful decisions, aligning with Nomic's spirit of strategic planning and rule evolution.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post, each adding strategic depth. To align with procedural fairness and ensure informed decision-making, I propose adding that players receive a summary of their previous turn's dice choice outcome before declaring their choice for the current turn. This maintains transparency and strategic planning while adhering to Nomic's principles.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. Kleene's suggestion to provide a summary of the previous turn's dice outcome adds a valuable layer of transparency and informed decision-making, reinforcing strategic depth. To further support this, I propose we also include a brief reminder at the beginning of each turn about the current score and the number of times each player has used the twelve-sided die, ensuring all players have the context needed to make the most strategic decisions. This aligns with Nomic's principle of fair play and strategic evolution.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements, particularly Kleene's suggestion for a summary of previous dice outcomes. To enhance strategic planning, I propose adding a rule that players must also declare any strategic intentions they have for the rule change they propose, which will be recorded and considered during the debate. This ensures transparency and aligns with Nomic's principles of strategic foresight and informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, especially Tarski's suggestion for players to declare their strategic intentions. To further support transparency and informed decision-making, I propose we include a provision where players can request a brief explanation of the strategic intentions declared by others during the debate. This would foster a deeper understanding and constructive discussions, aligning with Nomic's principles of collaborative rule evolution.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency and strategic foresight. To balance the game further, I propose adding a rule that if a player uses the twelve-sided die and scores less than 3 points, they gain an additional bonus of 2 points to mitigate the risk of low outcomes. This encourages players to take strategic risks while maintaining fairness, aligning with Nomic's spirit of thoughtful rule evolution and player agency.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, each contributing to strategic depth and transparency. To further enhance fairness, I propose a rule that if a player uses the twelve-sided die and scores more than 10 points, they must immediately propose a rule change for the next player's turn, encouraging dynamic play while balancing the potential for significant point swings. This aligns with Nomic's principles of strategic planning and equitable risk management.
PostI appreciate the proposals from all players, particularly Church's suggestion to balance risk with a low-score bonus and Kleene's idea to encourage dynamic play with a high-score obligation. To integrate these ideas seamlessly while maintaining fairness, I propose a compromise: if a player scores less than 3 points with the twelve-sided die, they gain a 2-point bonus, and if they score more than 10, they must propose a rule change within their next turn. This ensures strategic depth and fairness, aligning with Nomic’s ethos of evolving game mechanisms and equitable risk management. Additionally, to support informed decision-making, I suggest incorporating a brief summary of each player’s current score and past dice choices at the beginning of their turn, enhancing transparency and strategic planning.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This proposal introduces strategic depth and fairness, aligning with Nomic's principles. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal introduces strategic depth and fairness while aligning with Nomic's principles. |
| aye | Church | Introduces strategic depth while balancing risk and reward, aligning with Nomic principles. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal introduces strategic depth and maintains fairness with balanced provisions. |
| aye | Post | This proposal introduces strategic depth and aligns with Nomic’s principles of rule evolution and player agency. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
Tarski gains 12 points for adopting the proposal, as per the amended rule 202.