The motion
To amend §205
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.To provide a fair incentive for proposing beneficial rule changes while reducing the penalty for unsuccessful proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to adjust the penalties for defeated proposals. While reducing the penalty to 2 points is a step toward encouraging more rule changes, it may inadvertently lead to a flood of proposals, some less carefully considered, given the reduced risk. Therefore, I propose a middle ground: reduce the penalty for a defeated proposal to 5 points, and allow the proposer to propose the same change again after three turns. This maintains a deterrent against frivolous proposals while allowing space for thoughtful reconsideration.
Additionally, to further encourage constructive rule changes, I suggest adding a clause that grants the proposer of a successfully adopted rule an opportunity to gain points from that change in their next turn, provided they can demonstrate its benefit within a structured framework. This approach balances risk and reward, ensuring that players remain motivated to propose meaningful changes.
I am open to further negotiation to build consensus around these amendments.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's thoughtful proposal to balance risk and reward by adjusting penalties and offering opportunities for revisiting defeated proposals. The idea of reducing the penalty for a defeated proposal to 5 points seems reasonable, as it provides a safety net without removing the deterrent effect entirely.
I propose a slight modification: instead of allowing a proposal to be re-presented after three turns, let's extend this to four turns. This gives proposers more time to refine their ideas, enhancing the quality of rule changes.
Additionally, I agree with Tarski's suggestion to allow proposers to gain points from an adopted rule in their next turn, but I propose adding a requirement for proposers to outline expected benefits before the vote. This ensures clarity and commitment to the change's positive impact.
I support Tarski's proposal with these adjustments and look forward to reaching a consensus.
ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue between Tarski and Goedel, and I find merit in both proposals. To build on their suggestions, I propose a slight adjustment: the penalty for a defeated proposal should be reduced to 5 points, as Tarski suggests, but with a provision that allows the proposer to submit a revised version after two turns instead of three or four. This encourages timely refinement while preventing excessive back-and-forth.
Furthermore, I support the idea of allowing proposers to gain points from an adopted rule in their next turn, contingent upon demonstrating its benefit, as Tarski proposed. To ensure fairness, I suggest adding a clause that requires proposers to submit a brief justification of expected benefits, which can be reviewed by the other players before the vote. This maintains transparency and commitment to constructive changes.
I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and build consensus.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations by Tarski and Goedel, and Church's suggestions for timely refinement. To ensure procedural fairness, I propose a minor adjustment: let's maintain the three-turn waiting period for re-proposing a defeated change, as it strikes a balance between discouraging frivolous proposals and allowing thoughtful reconsideration. Additionally, I support the requirement for proposers to outline expected benefits before voting, as it enhances transparency and commitment to constructive changes.
To further align with our principles, I suggest explicitly stating that proposers must demonstrate the benefit in their next turn with evidence or reasoning, ensuring that the points gained are justified and not merely speculative. This approach maintains a principled framework while encouraging meaningful participation.
I am open to further discussion to refine these proposals and reach a consensus.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To support the momentum towards constructive rule changes, I propose incorporating a feedback mechanism where players can provide input on a defeated proposal before it is resubmitted. This ensures that the proposer has considered alternative perspectives and can refine their proposal accordingly. Additionally, I support the requirement for proposers to demonstrate the benefit of an adopted rule change in their next turn, as it aligns with our goal of encouraging thoughtful and meaningful contributions. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and build consensus.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the contributions from all players, particularly the emphasis on refining proposals and the idea of a feedback mechanism. To further encourage thoughtful participation, I propose adding a clause that grants proposers an opportunity to consult with a designated reviewer (such as one other player) before re-submitting a defeated proposal. This would provide an additional layer of scrutiny, ensuring that revisions are well-considered and beneficial. I support the outlined requirement for proposers to demonstrate the benefits of adopted changes in their subsequent turn, as it maintains accountability and motivates meaningful engagement. I am open to further negotiation to refine these proposals and achieve consensus.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a designated reviewer to enhance scrutiny on re-submitted proposals. To further promote collaborative improvement, I propose that the feedback from the designated reviewer be shared with the proposer in writing before they re-submit, ensuring transparency and constructive guidance. This approach not only aligns with our consensus-building goals but also encourages well-considered changes. I support Tarski's proposal with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency and constructive feedback. To further strengthen the proposal, I suggest adding a clause that allows the proposer to gain up to 3 points from the feedback process itself if it leads to a successful re-submission. This reward encourages engagement with the feedback mechanism and acknowledges the effort involved in refining proposals. I support the proposal with this addition, as it balances accountability with encouragement for continuous improvement.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post, particularly regarding the feedback mechanism and designated reviewer. To further encourage constructive engagement, I propose that the designated reviewer must be chosen from among the players who voted against the original proposal. This ensures that the feedback is informed by critical perspectives, enhancing the quality of revisions. I am open to further negotiation to refine these proposals and build consensus.
PostI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly the emphasis on critical feedback from those who originally opposed the proposal. To ensure a fair and constructive process, I propose that the designated reviewer must be one of the players who voted against the proposal, and their feedback should be summarized in a brief report shared with all players. This ensures transparency and encourages the proposer to consider diverse perspectives. Additionally, I suggest that if the proposal is successfully revised and adopted, the proposer could gain an extra 2 points for engaging with the feedback process, reinforcing the value of thoughtful revision. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and achieve consensus.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive discussions we've had around refining rule changes and engaging with feedback. To further bolster our commitment to thoughtful deliberation and improvement, I propose a slight adjustment: the designated reviewer's feedback summary should also include potential benefits that the original proposal might offer, providing a balanced perspective. This ensures that while critical viewpoints are considered, the proposer also understands the proposal's potential merits, encouraging well-rounded revisions. Additionally, I suggest that the extra points gained for engaging with feedback be increased to 3 points, further incentivizing participation in this constructive process. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and achieve consensus.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, particularly the balanced approach to feedback and the encouragement for proposers to consider diverse perspectives. To further enhance this collaborative effort, I propose adding a requirement that the feedback summary must be reviewed and agreed upon by at least three players, including the reviewer, before the revised proposal is accepted for re-submission. This ensures that the feedback is not only critical but also constructive and aligned with the broader interests of the group. I support Tarski's suggestion to increase the extra points for engaging with feedback to 3, as it incentivizes meaningful participation. I am open to further negotiation to refine these proposals and achieve consensus.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the emphasis on collaborative improvement and balanced feedback. To further ensure fairness and thorough consideration, I propose that the feedback summary must be discussed in a brief meeting with all players before the revised proposal is accepted for re-submission. This meeting would allow for any final adjustments and ensure all players are aligned on the proposed changes. I support the proposal with this addition, as it promotes transparency and collective agreement, ensuring that the revised proposal is well-considered and broadly supported. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and achieve consensus.
KleeneI appreciate the detailed refinements and the focus on collaborative improvement through feedback. To further enhance the fairness and thoroughness of this process, I suggest that the feedback meeting include an option for the proposer to request a second opinion from another player who was initially neutral or in favor of the original proposal, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. This could help balance the critical feedback and provide a more rounded view of the proposal's potential. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and achieve consensus.
PostI appreciate the ongoing efforts to refine the proposal and ensure a fair and constructive feedback process. To further enhance the balance of perspectives, I propose that the feedback meeting should include an opportunity for the proposer to present their own summary of the feedback received, allowing them to clarify any misunderstandings or highlight aspects of the proposal that may have been overlooked. This ensures that the proposer's intentions are accurately represented and considered before finalizing the revised proposal. I support the proposal with this addition, as it promotes comprehensive understanding and fairness in the revision process. I am open to further negotiation to refine these ideas and achieve consensus.
The division
| aye | Tarski | Encourages more thoughtful participation by reducing penalty risk. |
| aye | Goedel | This amendment strikes a balance between encouraging rule changes and maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Church | Balances risk and reward, encouraging thoughtful rule changes. |
| aye | Kleene | Balances risk and reward for proposing changes. |
| aye | Post | This proposal balances risk and reward, encouraging thoughtful rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §205 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but its benefits cannot be applied by the proposer in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Rule 205 was amended, so Tarski does not lose points for a failed proposal, and no other rules create or move ledgers.