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 gains 2 points from the change. 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 3 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 3 points.Balancing strategic depth while preventing repetitive proposals and ensuring consensus-building efforts are rewarded.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's recent efforts to foster consensus and build a robust rule-changing process. Tarski: While I see the merit in rewarding efforts to increase strategic depth, the current proposal to reduce point gains from 5 to 3 may undervalue impactful changes. To maintain a balance between encouraging innovation and rewarding strategic depth, I propose retaining the 5-point reward for significantly enhancing strategic depth, while we could consider adjusting the support points separately. This keeps the incentive high for meaningful contributions without compromising the reward for consensus-building efforts.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's emphasis on maintaining strong incentives for strategic depth. To balance this with rewarding consensus-building, I propose we adjust the support points to 4 instead of 3 or 5. This way, we encourage efforts to build consensus while still valuing strategic enhancements, ensuring a fair and motivating environment for all players.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's focus on rewarding strategic depth and consensus-building. Church suggests maintaining the 5-point reward for significantly enhancing strategic depth, as it encourages impactful contributions. However, Church proposes a middle ground for support points: setting them at 4, as Goedel suggests, to balance both elements effectively, ensuring fairness and motivation across the board.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski and Goedel, as well as Church's middle-ground suggestion. However, in the spirit of procedural fairness and to avoid setting a precedent that may undervalue consensus-building efforts, I propose retaining the 5-point reward for strategic depth but agree with the suggestion to adjust the support points to 4. This ensures a balanced approach, maintaining high incentives for meaningful rule changes while equally valuing collaborative efforts.
PostPost: I appreciate the balanced approach suggested by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, especially the consensus on support points. To ensure strategic depth is appropriately valued, I propose a compromise: maintain the 5-point reward for significantly increasing strategic depth and set support points at 4, as it offers a fair incentive for both innovation and collaboration. This approach keeps the game engaging and rewarding for all players while encouraging both impactful and cooperative rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the consensus building around support points and the agreement on maintaining the 5-point reward for strategic depth. To ensure that strategic depth remains a key focus of our rule changes, I propose that we also introduce a clause that allows players to propose an additional rule change in the same turn if the previous one significantly increases strategic depth. This would incentivize players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals, aligning with our shared goal of fostering an engaging and strategically rich game environment. Let's retain the 5-point reward for strategic depth and set support points at 4, as agreed, while exploring this further incentive.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal to incentivize strategic depth further by allowing an additional rule change in the same turn. This is a thoughtful way to encourage players to think beyond immediate gains. To ensure fairness and maintain engagement, I propose that such additional proposals should still be subject to the same consensus-building point system (4 points for efforts), ensuring that the focus remains on collaboration and strategic enhancement. Let's proceed with the agreed 5-point reward for strategic depth and 4 support points for consensus-building, integrating this new clause for a more dynamic play experience.
ChurchChurch: Church appreciates the collaborative effort to maintain high incentives for strategic depth while valuing consensus-building. Church supports retaining the 5-point reward for strategic depth and setting support points at 4, as it balances innovation with collaboration. To further align with our goal of fairness and strategic richness, Church suggests adding a provision that allows for a brief reflection period between rule changes within the same turn, ensuring players have adequate time to consider the implications of their proposals. This can help maintain the integrity of strategic depth while fostering thoughtful deliberation. Let's proceed with the agreed-upon points and this additional reflection clause to enhance our game dynamics.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the consensus around maintaining a 5-point reward for strategic depth and setting support points at 4. Kleene supports the proposal to allow an additional rule change in the same turn for significant strategic enhancements, as it aligns with procedural fairness by rewarding thoughtful contributions. Additionally, I suggest that this provision be applied only if the initial rule change is adopted, ensuring that strategic depth is genuinely achieved before granting the additional opportunity. Let's finalize the proposal with the 5-point reward, 4 support points, and the conditional clause for an additional rule change.
PostPost: I appreciate the collective effort to create a balanced approach that rewards both strategic depth and consensus-building. Post agrees with the proposed 5-point reward for significantly increasing strategic depth and 4 support points for building consensus, as it ensures meaningful and collaborative rule changes are valued. To further encourage thoughtful decision-making, I suggest incorporating a clause that requires a minimum of 10 points accumulated through strategic depth before a player can propose an additional rule change in the same turn. This ensures that only players who have consistently contributed to the strategic richness of the game can leverage this opportunity, maintaining fairness and engagement for all players.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from my peers and agree with Kleene's proposal to condition the additional rule change on the initial change being adopted. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the 10-point threshold for an additional rule change be a cumulative score, encouraging consistent contributions rather than a single large gain. This maintains engagement and aligns with our shared goal of fostering a strategic and collaborative environment. Let's proceed with these refinements: retain the 5-point reward for strategic depth, set support points at 4, and implement the conditional clause with the cumulative score requirement.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion to use a cumulative score for enabling additional rule changes, as it ensures consistent strategic contributions. To maintain balance, I propose that we define "significant strategic depth" with specific criteria, such as introducing new mechanics or altering existing ones in a meaningful way, so players have a clear understanding of what qualifies. This clarity will help ensure fairness and encourage innovation, aligning with our shared goal of a strategically rich game environment. Let's integrate these criteria with the cumulative score requirement for additional proposals.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the effort to define "significant strategic depth" with specific criteria, as it provides clarity and fairness. Church suggests that these criteria include both introducing new mechanics and enhancing existing ones to ensure they contribute meaningfully to the game's strategic complexity. This approach not only encourages innovation but also maintains the game's integrity and balance. Let's finalize these criteria alongside the cumulative score requirement and the agreed-upon point system for a comprehensive and fair rule change.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the detailed criteria proposed for "significant strategic depth," as they ensure clarity and fairness. However, to further align with procedural fairness and prevent exploitation, I suggest adding a review process for these criteria, allowing players to appeal decisions about whether a change meets the standard. This would ensure consistent application and maintain trust in the rule-changing process. Let's include this review process in our proposal alongside the cumulative score requirement, specific criteria, and the agreed-upon point system.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's proposal for a review process to ensure the fair application of "significant strategic depth" criteria, as it adds an essential layer of transparency and trust to our rule changes. To maintain strategic engagement, I suggest that the review process involve a panel of at least three players who were not directly involved in the proposal, ensuring impartiality and broad representation. This would help maintain fairness and balance in our evolving game dynamics. Let's incorporate this impartial review panel into our proposal alongside the cumulative score requirement, specific criteria, and the agreed-upon point system.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances strategic depth rewards with consensus-building, maintaining a motivating environment. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances incentives for both consensus-building and strategic depth. |
| aye | Church | The proposal maintains fair incentives for strategic depth and consensus-building. |
| nay | Kleene | reducing points undervalues strategic depth and consensus efforts |
| aye | Post | This proposal maintains incentives for strategic depth while encouraging consensus. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski 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. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 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 gains 2 points from the change. 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 3 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 3 points.
Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.