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 4 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 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.Encourages strategic play by rewarding cumulative achievements with additional opportunities for rule change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiThank you, Tarski, for the thoughtful proposal to allow players with a cumulative score that is a multiple of 10 to propose an additional rule change. I appreciate the strategic engagement it aims to promote, but I suggest a modification to ensure balance.
Could we clarify that this additional rule change does not bypass the existing restrictions on proposing defeated changes, nor should it allow for more than two changes per turn to avoid excessive complexity? This would ensure that while strategic opportunities are expanded, the game's integrity and fairness are maintained.
I am willing to support this amendment with these considerations included.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your thoughtful proposal and consideration of strategic engagement. I appreciate your focus on maintaining balance, and I support the idea of allowing an additional proposal with cumulative score criteria. To enhance fairness and prevent potential exploitation, let's ensure that any additional proposals are subject to a minimum threshold of support (e.g., a simple majority) before being debated further. This can help maintain the game's competitive integrity. I'm open to negotiating further details on this aspect.
PASS
ChurchChurch: Thank you, Tarski and Goedel, for your thoughtful contributions and suggestions. I appreciate the strategic engagement this proposal aims to introduce. To ensure it remains fair and doesn't overly complicate gameplay, I suggest we add a clause that any additional proposal must not only gain a minimum threshold of support but also be distinct from any proposal made in the player's previous turn. This would prevent repetitive strategies and maintain the integrity of each turn's decision-making process. I support this amendment with these conditions.
KleeneThank you, Tarski and Goedel, for the proposal and Goedel for emphasizing a support threshold. I support the idea of an additional proposal but suggest we ensure that it does not disproportionately advantage players already close to a target score. To maintain balance, let's stipulate that this extra proposal privilege applies only to players whose cumulative score is a multiple of 10 but less than 80. This can prevent late-game players from gaining undue advantage while encouraging strategic play. I am open to further refinement.
**VOTE: Nay** - I will vote against the proposal as currently drafted, as it risks creating an imbalance favoring late-game players. However, I am open to supporting it if we include the condition that the additional proposal privilege only applies to players with a cumulative score below 80. This adjustment would align with my commitment to fairness and strategic integrity.
PostThank you, Kleene, for your insightful suggestion to cap the additional proposal privilege at a cumulative score below 80. This adjustment indeed addresses potential imbalances and promotes fairness. I concur with this modification and support the proposal with this condition included. Let's also ensure that these extra proposals are counted in the total number of mutable rules, maintaining compliance with the rule limiting mutable rules to 23. This will preserve the structural integrity of our ruleset. I am ready to vote in favor with these adjustments.
**VOTE: Aye**
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: Thank you, Post, for the valuable suggestions and commitment to maintaining the structural integrity of our ruleset. I agree that additional proposals should count towards the limit of mutable rules to ensure compliance with our current structure. Moreover, I suggest that any additional proposal by a player with a cumulative score that is a multiple of 10 be limited to proposing changes to existing rules rather than enacting new ones, to prevent the ruleset from becoming overly complex. This would foster strategic depth without compromising game balance. I support the proposal with these adjustments included.
**VOTE: Aye**
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Kleene, Church, and Post, for your constructive feedback and suggestions. I appreciate the focus on maintaining strategic depth and fairness. To further balance Tarski's proposal, I suggest we include a clause that any additional proposal made by a player with a cumulative score that is a multiple of 10 must be distinct from any rule change proposed in their last two turns. This will prevent repetitive strategies and ensure each turn's decision-making process remains dynamic and engaging. I am open to discussing this further to reach a consensus.
**VOTE: Aye**
ChurchThank you, Goedel, Kleene, Church, and Post, for the insightful discussions and constructive amendments. I appreciate the collective effort to ensure fairness and strategic depth. To further refine the proposal, let's specify that the additional proposal privilege also requires a brief justification to be provided, ensuring clarity and transparency in strategic intent. This will help maintain the game's integrity and encourage thoughtful rule changes. I support the proposal with this condition included.
**VOTE: Aye**
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive contributions and thoughtful amendments from all players. The proposal has been refined significantly to maintain fairness and strategic engagement. In support of these goals, I suggest that any additional proposal granted at a cumulative score multiple of 10 should also be subject to a review process after its immediate effects, allowing players to assess its strategic impact and fairness. This review would ensure that the rule change aligns with the intended strategic depth without unforeseen consequences. I support this proposal with the review process included.
**VOTE: Aye**
PostThank you, Kleene, for the insightful suggestion to include a review process for additional proposals. I support this addition as it ensures strategic balance and allows for adjustments if unforeseen issues arise. To further promote strategic foresight, let's also require that any player utilizing this privilege must declare their intent to propose an additional change at the start of their turn, allowing others to prepare their responses and maintain a fair playing field. I support the proposal with this condition included.
**VOTE: Aye**
Discussion · round 3
TarskiThank you, Goedel, Kleene, Church, and Post, for your insightful contributions. I appreciate the efforts to maintain fairness and strategic engagement. To further enhance transparency and strategic planning, let's include a provision that any player utilizing this privilege must publicly outline their strategic rationale before voting begins. This will ensure all players understand the intent behind the additional proposal and can make informed decisions, thereby upholding the integrity of our game. I support the proposal with this condition included.
**VOTE: Aye**
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for emphasizing the need for strategic transparency and planning. I fully support the idea of requiring a public outline of strategic rationale for additional proposals. This ensures clarity and helps maintain a fair playing field. Additionally, to further bolster strategic engagement, I propose that any player exercising this privilege must also commit to a follow-up discussion round post-vote, where they can address any concerns or questions from other players. This would foster a collaborative environment and ensure that all players are on the same page regarding the rule's implications. I am open to further negotiation to refine this proposal.
**VOTE: Aye**
ChurchThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, Church, and Post, for the collaborative effort to ensure fairness and strategic depth. I appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the emphasis on transparency and strategic engagement. To further balance the proposal, I suggest we include a clause that any additional proposal privilege must be used within two turns of achieving a cumulative score multiple of 10. This would prevent players from delaying their additional proposal to a more strategically advantageous moment, thereby maintaining the intended pace and fairness of the game. I support this amendment with this condition included.
**VOTE: Aye**
KleeneThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, Church, and Post, for your comprehensive contributions toward refining this proposal. I appreciate the balance you've sought between strategic opportunities and fair play. To ensure that the proposal's intent remains aligned with procedural fairness, I suggest including a provision that any additional proposal made under this privilege be subject to an automatic review by all players after three turns. This review would evaluate whether the additional proposal has maintained its intended strategic depth without introducing unintended imbalances, ensuring the game's fairness and integrity are preserved. I support the proposal with this condition included.
**VOTE: Aye**
PostThank you, Kleene, for the thoughtful addition of an automatic review process to ensure fairness and strategic depth. I appreciate the collective effort to balance strategic engagement with procedural integrity. To further enhance the clarity and transparency of this proposal, I suggest we include a provision that any automatic review conducted will involve a structured discussion phase, where players can present their observations and propose adjustments if needed. This will ensure that the review process is not only evaluative but also collaborative, allowing for any necessary refinements to be made in a manner that respects all players' input. I support this amendment with the structured discussion phase included.
**VOTE: Aye**
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances strategic opportunities with fairness and procedural integrity. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal is well-balanced, encourages strategic play, and includes safeguards for fairness. |
| aye | Church | This amendment encourages strategic depth and fairness, with balanced checks in place. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal maintains procedural fairness and strategic engagement. |
| aye | Post | The proposal promotes strategic engagement while maintaining fairness and game balance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Tarski 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 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 4 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 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn.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 4 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 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.
Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.