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. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.Encourages strategic depth and consensus-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's intention to reward strategic depth, which aligns well with fostering thoughtful gameplay. However, we must define what constitutes "significant" strategic depth to ensure fairness and prevent subjective interpretation. Let us amend the proposal to include a criterion: the rule change must allow for at least two additional strategic options for players that can be objectively identified. This will ensure clarity and prevent disputes. I am willing to support this revised amendment if we can agree on the criteria for assessing strategic depth.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal for clear criteria on "significant" strategic depth, as it aligns with our goal for transparency and fairness. To build on this, let's define "additional strategic options" as choices that impact at least two different aspects of gameplay, such as scoring, voting, or rule changes. This specificity will help avoid disputes and ensure that the rule change genuinely enriches the game. I support this revised criterion and am open to further refining it with the group's input.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the efforts by Tarski and Goedel to clarify the criteria for "significant" strategic depth. To further enhance fairness, let's add a requirement that these strategic options must be accessible to all players, not just the proposer. This ensures the rule change benefits the overall game environment. I support this addition and propose we refine the assessment process with input from all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski and Goedel's work on clarifying criteria for "significant" strategic depth. To further ensure fairness, let's specify that the strategic options must not disproportionately favor any single player or subset of players. I support the revised amendment with this added condition and propose we establish a committee of all players to review and approve strategic depth evaluations for transparency.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the criteria for "significant" strategic depth. To ensure the rule change remains balanced and fair, I propose adding that any additional strategic options introduced must be reversible or modifiable in future turns, allowing for dynamic gameplay adjustments. This will prevent any long-term imbalance and promote continuous strategic engagement. I support the revised amendment with this condition and suggest we include a feedback mechanism for players to express concerns or suggestions about strategic depth changes.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post in refining the criteria for "significant" strategic depth. To build on these ideas, I propose we incorporate a periodic review mechanism, where all players collaboratively assess the impact of strategic changes at regular intervals. This will ensure ongoing fairness and adaptability, allowing us to address any unforeseen consequences and maintain balanced gameplay. I support the revised amendment with this addition and suggest we set a specific timeline for these reviews.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive discussion on defining and assessing "significant" strategic depth. To further enhance our agreement, I propose that the committee of all players, tasked with reviewing strategic depth evaluations, should also consider player feedback and past game dynamics to make informed decisions. This will ensure that our criteria adapt to evolving strategies and maintain the game's integrity. I support this proposal with the added emphasis on leveraging historical data and player insights.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the depth of our discussions on evaluating strategic depth. To ensure transparency and prevent any bias, I propose that the committee's decisions on strategic depth evaluations should be documented and shared with all players, allowing for accountability and collective understanding. I support this addition to ensure fairness and openness in our gameplay.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thorough proposals to ensure fairness and strategic balance. To further safeguard impartiality, let's stipulate that any committee decisions be subject to a simple majority override by all players, ensuring that no single player's influence can dominate the evaluation of strategic depth. This addition will maintain the integrity of our rule changes and promote an equitable game environment. I support this proposal with the added condition of a majority override.
PostI appreciate the collective efforts to ensure fairness and transparency in evaluating strategic depth. To further enhance our consensus, let's agree that any strategic rule change must be reversible within the first three turns after adoption, allowing for immediate adjustments if unintended consequences arise. This will ensure dynamic balance and maintain strategic engagement for all players. I support this proposal with the added condition of reversibility for the first three turns.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post towards defining and assessing strategic depth. To ensure clarity and prevent any unintended biases in our evaluation process, let's establish clear guidelines for the committee's review, including specific metrics and examples of strategic impact. I support this proposal with the condition that these guidelines be agreed upon by all players to maintain fairness and transparency in our assessments.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful proposals to ensure fairness and strategic depth. To further enhance clarity and avoid potential biases, I propose adding a requirement for periodic re-evaluation of the established criteria for "significant" strategic depth, ensuring they remain relevant to the evolving dynamics of our game. This will help us adapt to new strategies and maintain balanced gameplay. I support this proposal with the condition that these re-evaluations occur every five turns, allowing us to adjust our approach as needed.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the thoughtful proposals put forth by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure that our criteria for "significant" strategic depth remain adaptable and relevant to our evolving gameplay, I propose that the periodic re-evaluation of these criteria, suggested by Goedel, be conducted at the end of every major rule change cycle rather than at fixed intervals. This approach will allow us to adjust our criteria based on actual game developments and strategic innovations. I support this proposal and suggest that the committee's review guidelines include a mechanism for incorporating player feedback from these re-evaluations.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the proposals to ensure strategic depth criteria remain relevant and adaptable. To maintain procedural integrity, I propose that these re-evaluations by the committee should also include a formal feedback session with all players to capture diverse perspectives and insights, ensuring comprehensive and fair assessments. I support this addition to foster inclusivity and transparency in our process.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive discussion on strategic depth and the commitment to fairness and adaptability. To ensure our criteria remain robust and inclusive, I propose that the feedback sessions during re-evaluations include a structured format where players can present specific examples of strategic impacts observed in recent gameplay. This will help the committee make informed decisions based on concrete evidence and diverse player experiences. I support this proposal with the added condition of a structured feedback format to enhance clarity and relevance.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This amendment rewards strategic depth and consensus-building, aligning with our goals for fairness and thoughtful gameplay. |
| aye | Goedel | I support the proposal for clear criteria on strategic depth and consensus-building efforts. |
| aye | Church | This proposal incentivizes meaningful rule changes and consensus-building. |
| nay | Kleene | The term 'significant strategic depth' is not well-defined and could lead to subjective interpretations. |
| aye | Post | Rewarding strategic depth encourages thoughtful gameplay and consensus-building. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus.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. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.
Goedel gains 5 points for proposing a rule that significantly increases strategic depth.