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 6 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 three 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.Enhance strategic depth and consensus-building incentives.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to amend rule 202, as it aims to enhance strategic depth and encourage consensus-building. However, raising the threshold for "significant strategic depth" from two to three layers may unnecessarily complicate rule changes, potentially stifling creative proposals. Instead, I propose retaining the current threshold but expanding the points awarded for proposals that demonstrate clear, innovative strategic thinking, even if they do not meet the higher threshold. This adjustment would maintain a balance between encouraging strategic innovation and ensuring that rule changes remain manageable and engaging. Additionally, I support increasing the points for failed proposals demonstrating significant consensus-building efforts, as this encourages collaboration.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your insightful comments. I agree that raising the threshold might deter some creative proposals, so maintaining the current requirement while enhancing the reward system for innovative strategic thinking sounds like a balanced approach. I propose we increase the points for proposals that demonstrate strategic innovation to 6 points, even if they introduce just two new layers, thereby fostering creativity. Additionally, your suggestion to reward consensus-building efforts more generously is aligned with my goals of promoting collaboration. Let's work together to refine this proposal to ensure both strategic depth and cooperative gameplay are encouraged.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal and Tarski's constructive feedback. To maintain a balance between strategic innovation and collaboration, I propose a middle ground: keep the "significant strategic depth" threshold at two layers, but increase the reward to 5 points for proposals that clearly demonstrate innovative strategic thinking. Additionally, I support Tarski's idea of increasing the points for consensus-building to 6, as it promotes cooperative gameplay. Let's refine this proposal to encourage both strategic depth and teamwork.
KleeneI appreciate both Tarski's and Church's suggestions for balancing strategic innovation and collaboration. To further this balance, I propose we adopt the following amendments to rule 202: retain the "significant strategic depth" threshold at two new layers, award 5 points for proposals that demonstrate this depth, and increase the points to 6 for failed proposals that show substantial consensus-building efforts. This approach ensures that creativity and teamwork are both incentivized in our gameplay.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To ensure strategic depth and collaboration are both rewarded effectively, I propose we adopt a balanced approach: maintain the "significant strategic depth" threshold at two layers, reward 5 points for such proposals, and increase points for consensus-building to 6 for failed proposals. This fosters innovation while promoting teamwork, aligning well with my reformist goals. Let's finalize these amendments to enhance our game's fairness and strategic engagement.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposed amendments seem to strike a fair balance between strategic innovation and rewarding consensus-building. To further reinforce our commitment to strategic depth, I suggest we clarify the criteria for evaluating what constitutes "two new layers of strategy," ensuring transparency and fairness in awarding points. This clarity will help us maintain a consistent and engaging rule-making process. Let's proceed with these amendments.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine rule 202 and the balanced approach proposed by Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I suggest we explicitly define the criteria for "two new layers of strategy" to ensure clarity and consistency in evaluating proposals. This will help us maintain an engaging and transparent rule-making process. Let's proceed with these amendments.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative refinements made to Goedel's proposal by Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposed amendments strike a good balance between fostering strategic innovation and encouraging collaboration. To ensure fairness and transparency in awarding points for "significant strategic depth," I suggest we establish a clear set of criteria for what constitutes "two new layers of strategy." This clarity will help us maintain consistency in evaluating proposals and keep the game engaging for all players. Let's proceed with these amendments.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive refinements from my fellow players. To ensure fairness and strategic engagement, let's clearly define "two new layers of strategy" and adopt the amendments as proposed. I support proceeding with these balanced changes.
PostI appreciate the consensus-building and the thoughtful refinements to rule 202 proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To solidify our commitment to both strategic depth and fair collaboration, I propose we also include a mechanism for peer review of proposals that claim to introduce significant strategic depth. This additional layer of scrutiny will ensure that the criteria for "two new layers of strategy" are applied consistently and transparently, enhancing fairness and engagement in our rule-making process. Let's proceed with these amendments and the peer review mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post toward enhancing both strategic depth and collaboration. I support the proposed amendments to rule 202, including the establishment of clear criteria for "two new layers of strategy" and the introduction of a peer review mechanism to ensure transparency. This approach aligns with my values of promoting fair and strategic gameplay. Let's proceed with these amendments.
GoedelThank you, Post, for the proposal of a peer review mechanism, which is a thoughtful addition that will enhance transparency and fairness. To ensure this mechanism is implemented smoothly, I suggest we define a clear procedure for how peer reviews are conducted, perhaps involving a rotating panel of players to assess proposals. This approach will maintain consistency and prevent bias, further strengthening our collaborative rule-making process. Let's proceed with these comprehensive amendments.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine rule 202, especially the introduction of a peer review mechanism to ensure fair evaluation of strategic depth. To support this proposal, I suggest that the peer review panel should be selected randomly at the beginning of each game, ensuring impartiality and equal participation from all players. This random selection will prevent any bias and promote fairness in assessing proposals, aligning with our goal of maintaining a balanced and engaging rule-making process. Let's proceed with these amendments, including the random selection of the peer review panel.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post, especially the establishment of clear criteria and a peer review mechanism for "two new layers of strategy." To ensure the peer review panel operates fairly, I suggest adding a rule that requires the panel to reach a consensus, with a simple majority vote, before making a final decision on a proposal's strategic depth. This will help maintain consistency and transparency in the evaluation process. Let's proceed with these amendments.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and consensus-building efforts by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To enhance transparency and fairness in the peer review process, I propose we also include a feedback mechanism where the proposer can respond to the panel's evaluation before a final decision is made. This will allow for clarification and ensure that all perspectives are considered, maintaining a balanced and engaging rule-making process. Let's proceed with these amendments.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The amendments enhance strategic depth while promoting collaboration, aligning with our goals. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal fosters strategic depth and collaboration, aligning with my goals. |
| aye | Church | The amendments promote strategic depth and collaborative gameplay. |
| aye | Kleene | Promotes strategic depth and fair collaboration. |
| aye | Post | This proposal enhances strategic depth and fair collaboration. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Goedel 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. 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.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 6 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 three 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.
Goedel gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.