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 may gain points from the change in their next turn.This amendment allows proposers to benefit from their successful proposals, incentivizing strategic rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Church's effort to increase strategic depth by allowing proposers to gain points in their next turn. However, this change could lead to an imbalance, where players with higher scores might consistently defer gains, thus widening the gap and reducing competition. To maintain fairness, I propose a modification: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, unless they are within 10 points of the current leader, in which case they must gain points immediately." This adjustment ensures a dynamic competition while allowing strategic planning.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Church's proposal for adding strategic depth, and Tarski's concern about maintaining fair competition. To bridge both ideas, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least half the points immediately if they are within 10 points of the current leader." This balances immediate reward with strategic planning, keeping the competition tight.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the balance both Tarski and Goedel are striving for. To ensure that the strategic depth does not lead to stagnation, I propose a slight refinement: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least half the points immediately if they are within 15 points of the current leader." This adjustment allows for strategic planning while ensuring that players within striking distance remain competitive.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's concerns about maintaining a competitive balance. To ensure fairness while allowing strategic flexibility, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if they are within 12 points of the current leader." This ensures players near the lead remain competitive while still rewarding strategic play.
PostPost: I appreciate the efforts by Tarski, Goedel, and Kleene to balance immediate rewards with strategic planning. To ensure fairness and maintain momentum, I propose a further refinement: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if they are within 12 points of the current leader, and must gain all points if they are within 5 points." This ensures that players in close contention cannot stall the game's progress, while still allowing those further behind to strategize effectively.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure strategic depth without compromising fairness, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if within 12 points of the current leader, and must gain all points if within 5 points." This ensures players close to the lead continue to engage competitively while still allowing room for strategic planning.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to balance immediate rewards with strategic planning. To further enhance fairness and maintain momentum, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if they are within 12 points of the current leader, and must gain all points if within 5 points." This ensures competitive play while allowing those further behind to strategize effectively.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post for their thoughtful contributions towards ensuring fairness and strategic depth. I agree with the refined proposal: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if they are within 12 points of the current leader, and must gain all points if within 5 points." This compromise maintains competitive momentum while allowing strategic planning for those further behind. I support this proposal.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the consensus building and the thoughtful refinements made by my colleagues. To ensure a balance between strategy and fairness, I support the proposal as it stands: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn, but must gain at least one-third of the points immediately if they are within 12 points of the current leader, and must gain all points if within 5 points." This proposal ensures fair competition while allowing strategic depth, which aligns with my principles.
PostPost: I appreciate the consensus around the proposal to balance immediate rewards with strategic planning. As a reformer, I support the proposal as it stands because it aligns with our goal of maintaining fair competition and strategic depth. I also propose adding a feedback mechanism: "After each turn, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote, fostering transparency and strategic awareness." This ensures that the game evolves with clear communication, benefiting all players. I support the proposal and suggest this additional refinement.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's suggestion for a feedback mechanism to foster transparency. While I support the proposal to maintain strategic depth and fairness, I suggest a slight modification for the feedback requirement: "After each turn, players may choose to provide a brief rationale for their vote, promoting transparency without imposing additional burdens." This allows players to engage in strategic communication voluntarily, preserving the game's pace while encouraging thoughtful participation.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements by Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post in balancing strategic depth with fairness. The proposal as it stands, with the feedback mechanism, fosters both competitive integrity and strategic communication. To further enhance clarity, I suggest specifying the rationale format: "After each turn, players may choose to provide a brief rationale for their vote, limited to 30 words, promoting transparency without imposing additional burdens." This ensures concise communication while maintaining game flow. I support the proposal with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the proposal's evolution. As a consensus builder, I support the proposal as it stands, with the feedback mechanism, to ensure fair competition and strategic depth. Additionally, to enhance clarity and prevent potential disputes, I suggest incorporating a brief clarification period after each vote: "Players may request clarification on the rationale provided by others within 10 seconds of the vote's conclusion, ensuring transparency and understanding." This addition will help maintain the game's integrity and encourage informed decision-making. I support the proposal with this refinement.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collective effort toward a fair and strategic game, especially the addition of a feedback mechanism. As a principled proceduralist, I support the proposal in its current form. To ensure fairness and maintain game integrity, I propose an additional rule: "Any rationale exceeding 30 words shall be deemed invalid, and the player must provide a new, concise rationale." This encourages clarity and efficiency in communication, aligning with our shared principles of fair competition and strategic depth. I support the proposal with this refinement.
PostI appreciate the collective effort to enhance transparency and strategic communication through the feedback mechanism. As a reformer, I support the proposal and suggest adding a small amendment for fairness: "If a rationale is deemed invalid, the player must provide a new rationale within 20 seconds, or forfeit 1 point as a penalty." This encourages prompt and thoughtful participation, aligning with our goal of fair competition. I support the proposal with this addition.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances strategic depth with competitive fairness. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances strategic depth with fair competition, aligning with consensus-building principles. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness, ensuring competitive momentum. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal balances strategic depth with immediate rewards, ensuring fair competition. |
| aye | Post | This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness, maintaining competitive integrity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Church 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of the two dice in 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 may gain points from the change in their next turn.
The proposal was adopted, but no rule awards points on adoption; the proposer gains points in their next turn, not immediately.