The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright.This adjustment balances competitiveness while maintaining achievable goals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiThank you, Goedel, for your proposal to increase the target score to 95 points. While I understand the rationale for slightly extending the game duration, I remain concerned about the potential for increased strategic maneuvering to prolong play without necessarily enhancing fairness or enjoyment. However, I appreciate your intention to balance competitiveness and play time. In light of this, I propose a compromise: let's increase the target score to 93 points, which offers a moderate extension while still maintaining the spirit of the current gameplay tempo. I am open to further discussion or adjustments to this proposal if others find merit in this middle ground.
Tarski: aye (with suggested amendment to 93 points)
GoedelChurch: I appreciate Tarski's proposal to adjust the target score to 93 points as a compromise. It seems like a reasonable middle ground that respects both the need for a strategic challenge and a reasonable game length. I am inclined to support this adjustment, as it maintains the balance we've cultivated. Church: aye to the 93-point proposal.
Goedel: I appreciate both Tarski's and Church's contributions to this discussion. The compromise to set the target score at 93 points seems to strike a good balance between extending the game and preserving its strategic depth. I believe this adjustment will enrich our gameplay experience without unduly prolonging it. Goedel: aye to the 93-point proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful compromise to set the target score at 93 points. This adjustment seems to strike a balance between extending the game to allow for strategic depth and maintaining a reasonable timeframe. Church: aye to the 93-point proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the consensus around the 93-point target, which aligns with maintaining strategic balance while preventing excessive game length. However, to ensure the game's dynamics remain challenging, I propose adding a clause that triggers an additional rule change when a player reaches 80 points. This could introduce fresh strategies near the game's end, enhancing engagement. Kleene: aye to the 93-point proposal, with the suggested clause addition.
PASS
PostI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposal to set the target score at 93 points, which seems like a thoughtful compromise. However, Kleene's suggestion to introduce a dynamic rule change at 80 points is intriguing and could add an exciting layer of strategy. I propose we adopt Kleene's clause, but let's ensure it offers a balanced opportunity for all players to adapt and strategize effectively. Post: aye to the 93-point proposal, supporting Kleene's dynamic rule change clause with a focus on fairness.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's idea for a dynamic rule change at 80 points, which could indeed add strategic depth. However, we must ensure this doesn't disproportionately advantage any single player. Let's specify that any such rule change should be beneficial or neutral to all players, preventing an imbalance. Tarski: aye to the 93-point proposal with Kleene's clause, conditioned on maintaining equal opportunity.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching a consensus on the target score of 93 points and the dynamic rule change at 80 points. To ensure fairness and balance in the proposed clause, I suggest adding a provision for all players to have a brief discussion before the rule change takes effect. This discussion would allow everyone to strategize collectively, ensuring that the change is both fair and engaging for all players. Goedel: aye to the 93-point proposal with Kleene's clause, including the provision for collective strategy discussion.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of Goedel's proposal and the collaborative spirit displayed by everyone. The consensus on setting the target score at 93 points, along with Kleene's dynamic rule change at 80 points and Goedel's suggestion for a collective strategy discussion, seems to strike a fair balance between strategic depth and engagement. Church: aye to the proposal with all suggested amendments, as it maintains the game's fairness and enriches the strategic experience for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring both strategic depth and fairness. The provision for a collective strategy discussion at 80 points is a thoughtful addition, maintaining equal opportunity for all players. Kleene: aye to the proposal with all amendments, as it aligns with procedural fairness and enriches our strategic engagement.
PostPass
I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative nature of this proposal. The target score of 93 points, along with the dynamic rule change at 80 points and the provision for collective strategy discussions, seems to balance strategic complexity with fairness effectively. This approach maintains the game's competitive spirit while ensuring all players have an equal opportunity to engage and adapt. Thus, I support this well-rounded proposal.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the thoroughness and collaborative spirit that has brought us to this well-considered proposal. The inclusion of a collective strategy discussion at 80 points, coupled with the target score of 93, ensures that all players remain engaged and strategically involved until the end. This proposal strikes a balance between extending the game's duration and maintaining competitive fairness, and I wholeheartedly support it. Tarski: aye to the proposal with all amendments.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the consensus we've achieved with the proposal to set the target score at 93 points, along with Kleene's dynamic rule change at 80 points, and Goedel's provision for a collective strategy discussion. This well-rounded approach ensures strategic depth while maintaining fairness, and I'm pleased we've reached a balanced compromise. Goedel: aye to the proposal with all amendments.
ChurchI appreciate the consensus-building efforts around setting the target score at 93 points, incorporating Kleene's dynamic rule change at 80 points, and Goedel's suggestion for a collective strategy discussion. These elements together enrich the strategic depth of the game while ensuring fairness, and I fully support this balanced approach. Church: aye to the proposal with all amendments.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive collaboration that has shaped this proposal. The target score of 93 points, combined with the dynamic rule change at 80 points and the collective strategy discussion, strikes a fair balance between strategic depth and fairness. I support this proposal with all amendments, as it ensures that all players remain equally engaged and have opportunities to adapt. Kleene: aye.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort and the comprehensive amendments that have been made to the proposal, including the target score of 93 points, Kleene's dynamic rule change at 80 points, and the provision for a collective strategy discussion. This proposal not only maintains the competitive spirit of the game but also ensures fairness and engagement for all players, making it a well-rounded and strategic enhancement. I support this proposal with all amendments as it enriches the gameplay experience for everyone involved. Post: aye.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposal increases the target score to 95, which may unduly prolong play without clear benefits. |
| aye | Goedel | The amended proposal balances game length and strategy, incorporating fair dynamic rules. |
| abstain | Church | The proposal does not reflect the agreed-upon amendments to target 93 points with additional clauses. |
| aye | Kleene | The amendment to 93 points with a dynamic rule change at 80 points ensures strategic depth and fairness. |
| nay | Post | Proposing 95 points does not align with the agreed compromise to increase the target score to 93 points. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 204 awards 5 points to those who voted against an adopted change and deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated change.