Turn 20 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §206

An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.

This ensures strategic diversity and prevents repetitive rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for introducing a waiting period after a rule change, aiming to enhance strategic diversity. However, this proposal may excessively hinder proposers, especially those who may need to correct or refine their own changes. Let's consider a more balanced approach: a proposer can suggest the same change again after one turn instead of three, ensuring timely corrections while preventing immediate repetition.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a shorter waiting period. To strike a balance, how about allowing the same rule change proposal after two turns instead of three? This could prevent rapid repetition while still enabling necessary refinements. I'm open to further discussion to find a compromise that supports strategic diversity without undue restriction.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's efforts to balance strategic flexibility with preventing repetitive rule changes. A two-turn waiting period seems fair and encourages players to think carefully about their proposals. To further ensure fairness, we might consider a clause that allows for immediate re-proposal if a change is defeated due to a close vote, say within one vote of adoption. This could prevent frustration from narrow defeats and allow for necessary adjustments.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion for allowing immediate re-proposal after a close defeat, as it balances fairness with strategic planning. To refine Goedel's proposal further, I suggest the waiting period be two turns generally, but if a rule change fails by two votes or fewer, the proposer may re-propose it immediately. This modification ensures flexibility and prevents undue restriction while encouraging thoughtful rule proposals.

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's proposal to allow immediate re-proposal after a close defeat, as it prevents undue frustration and encourages strategic refinement. To further balance the rule, let's also consider allowing a proposer to re-propose if the change garners at least 50% of the votes in its initial attempt, reflecting a significant level of support. This would encourage thoughtful proposals and give weight to broadly supported ideas, even if they don't pass on the first try.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's addition of a support threshold for re-proposal. To further refine this balance, I propose that a proposer can re-propose a defeated change immediately if it received at least 60% support, instead of 50%. This threshold ensures that only changes with significant backing can bypass the waiting period, fostering strategic diversity while respecting the original intent of the rule.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a 60% support threshold, as it ensures only well-regarded proposals are quickly revisited. To balance this further, let's allow proposers to re-propose immediately if they received exactly 60% support, while a waiting period of two turns applies otherwise. This compromise encourages strategic depth while rewarding significant backing without excessive restrictions.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the refinement towards a 60% support threshold, as it prioritizes proposals with notable backing. To ensure this mechanism is not exploited, let's also consider adding a clause that limits each player to two immediate re-proposals per game, maintaining the spirit of strategic diversity while preventing repetitive tactics.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion for a limit on immediate re-proposals, as it prevents potential abuse while still allowing for strategic flexibility. To further balance this, we might consider allowing proposers to choose between two immediate re-proposals per game or a single re-proposal with no waiting period, thus encouraging players to strategize how they utilize their re-proposal opportunities effectively.

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's flexible approach to re-proposals, which encourages strategic decision-making. To ensure fairness and adaptability, let's also incorporate a review mechanism: if a rule change with a 60% initial support threshold is defeated again, it can be re-proposed after just one turn. This allows for adjustments based on feedback while maintaining strategic integrity.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's idea for a review mechanism, which balances flexibility and feedback. To integrate this constructively, we could specify that a rule change defeated after re-proposal, even with 60% initial support, requires unanimous consent for immediate re-proposal, thus ensuring that only widely agreed upon revisions bypass the waiting period. This promotes thoughtful proposals while maintaining strategic integrity.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal for unanimous consent on immediate re-proposals after a defeat. To ensure this doesn't overly restrict strategic adjustments, let's allow unanimous consent to apply only once per game per player, thus balancing thorough deliberation with flexibility to adapt based on collective agreement.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thorough discussion and the thoughtful balance we've achieved in refining this proposal. To ensure strategic depth and fairness, let's add a clause that allows for an immediate re-proposal if a change with 60% initial support garners unanimous consent after its second defeat, ensuring only well-considered revisions bypass the waiting period. This maintains the spirit of strategic diversity while respecting collective agreement. PASS

KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion for an additional layer of unanimity after the second defeat. To maintain balance, let's add that this unanimous consent clause can be invoked only once per game per player, ensuring it's used strategically without undermining the waiting period's intent. This keeps the rule fair and prevents excessive reliance on unanimous consent. PASS

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's proposal to limit the use of unanimous consent to once per game per player. To enhance strategic diversity while ensuring fairness, let's also consider introducing a feedback loop: after a rule change is re-proposed, players can submit written feedback, which the proposer must address before the vote. This ensures that revisions are informed by collective insights, promoting thoughtful and effective rule evolution.

The division

aye	Tarski	This amendment encourages strategic planning and prevents repetitive proposals.
aye	Goedel	I appreciate the consensus-building efforts and believe this proposal balances strategic diversity with fairness.
aye	Church	This proposal ensures strategic depth by preventing rapid repetition while allowing thoughtful adjustments.
aye	Kleene	This proposal balances strategic depth and fairness by allowing immediate re-proposal with significant initial support.
aye	Post	This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness by allowing re-proposals after a reasonable waiting period.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.

Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted, amending rule 206 as specified, with no scoring rules triggered.