Turn 44 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Adjusting the scoring multiple to 10 for additional rule change proposals encourages broader participation and strategic flexibility.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue we've engaged in thus far. The change to adjust the score threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, instead of 15, strikes a balance between encouraging more frequent opportunities for impactful contributions and maintaining strategic depth. This adjustment seems to better incentivize players to engage actively in rule-making without overly complicating the process. I support this amendment.

GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your proposal to adjust the scoring threshold to a multiple of 10 for proposing an additional rule change. This adjustment is thoughtful and indeed encourages more active participation, which aligns well with our collaborative ethos. I suggest we also consider adding a clause that allows for a brief post-vote discussion period, enabling further clarification and consensus-building. This could further enhance our strategic engagement and decision-making process. I support your amendment with this addition.

ChurchThank you, Tarski, for your proposal to adjust the threshold to a multiple of 10, which indeed encourages more frequent and strategic engagements. I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period, as it aligns with our goal to ensure thorough consensus and clarity. However, I'd like to add that such a discussion period should be time-bound to prevent prolonged debates that could stall the game. A limit of, say, two minutes per proposal might be appropriate to strike a balance between depth and efficiency. I support the amendment with this addition.

KleeneI appreciate Tarski's initiative to lower the threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, as it provides more frequent opportunities for impactful engagement. Additionally, I concur with Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period, provided it is time-bound to maintain efficiency. However, I propose that the time limit be set at three minutes per proposal to allow sufficient discussion without excessive delay. This balance should ensure thorough exploration of strategic implications while keeping the game dynamic. I support the amendment with this modification.

PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your insightful contributions. I appreciate the initiative to lower the threshold for proposing additional rule changes to a multiple of 10, as it indeed encourages more frequent and meaningful contributions. Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period is commendable, as it promotes further consensus-building and strategic clarity. Church, I agree that time-bound discussions are essential to prevent delays; a compromise between two and three minutes could be considered. Kleene, your proposal for a three-minute limit seems reasonable, ensuring sufficient discussion while maintaining efficiency. I support the amendment with the inclusion of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, as it fosters thorough engagement without hindering game progression.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and the constructive dialogue we've engaged in. The introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period is a balanced approach, allowing for meaningful discourse while maintaining efficiency in our decision-making process. This addition, combined with lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10 for proposing additional rule changes, promotes active participation and strategic depth without overcomplicating the game. I support the amendment with these refinements, as they align with our shared goal of fostering a collaborative and engaging rule-making environment. PASS.

GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your proposal and for incorporating the feedback from all players. The adjustments to both the threshold for proposing additional rule changes and the introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period seem well-considered and balanced. This approach encourages active participation and strategic engagement while maintaining the flow of the game. I support the amendment with these refinements. PASS.

ChurchPass. The proposed amendment, along with the suggested three-minute post-vote discussion period, effectively balances strategic engagement and efficiency. I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining these aspects, as they promote a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. This change encourages active participation without compromising the game's pace, aligning with our collective goal of maintaining a fair and engaging experience.

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements we've engaged in. The introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period is a prudent measure that allows for enhanced strategic clarity while preventing unnecessary delays. This balanced approach, combined with lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10, encourages active participation and ensures that our rule-making process remains both dynamic and fair. I support the amendment with these refinements. PASS.

PostPass. The collective consensus and thoughtful refinements to the proposal have resulted in a balanced rule that encourages active engagement and strategic depth. The inclusion of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, along with adjusting the threshold to a multiple of 10, strikes a harmonious balance between participation and efficiency. This amendment not only aligns with our shared ethos of fair and dynamic gameplay but also enhances the collaborative nature of our rule-making process. I appreciate the constructive dialogue and am confident that these changes will contribute positively to the evolution of our game.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiPASS The proposal seems well-crafted and enjoys broad support, which is crucial for its adoption. Lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10 and introducing a three-minute post-vote discussion period strikes a balanced approach between encouraging active participation and maintaining game efficiency. I concur with the amendments as they promote both strategic depth and collaborative engagement, aligning with our shared objectives.

GoedelPass. The proposal to adjust the threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, along with the introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, is a well-considered enhancement. This change promotes active participation and strategic depth while maintaining the flow of the game. It reflects our collective commitment to fostering a collaborative and engaging rule-making environment. I support the amendment with these refinements.

ChurchPass. I support the proposal as it stands. The adjustments to the scoring threshold and the introduction of a time-bound post-vote discussion period are well-considered changes that promote active engagement and strategic depth while maintaining the game's flow. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of fostering a collaborative and dynamic rule-making environment. Thank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful contributions.

KleenePASS The proposal to amend rule 202 by lowering the threshold for an additional rule change to a multiple of 10 and introducing a three-minute post-vote discussion period has been refined through collaborative discussion. The proposed changes promote active engagement, strategic depth, and efficient decision-making, aligning with our shared goals. Given the broad support and thorough consideration, I support the amendment as it stands.

PostPass. The proposal has been refined through thoughtful collaboration, balancing the need for active participation and strategic depth with game efficiency. The adjustments to the scoring threshold and the introduction of a post-vote discussion period are well-considered, promoting a dynamic and fair rule-making environment. I support these refinements as they align with our shared goals of fostering a collaborative and engaging gameplay experience.

The division

aye	Tarski	Promotes active engagement and strategic depth with balanced adjustments.
aye	Goedel	This proposal encourages active participation and strategic depth with a balanced approach.
aye	Church	Promotes strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
aye	Kleene	Promotes active engagement and strategic depth with balanced efficiency.
aye	Post	This amendment encourages active participation and strategic depth while maintaining game efficiency.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 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 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 two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.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 two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative 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, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.

Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.