Turn 45 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment promotes strategic depth while encouraging collaboration and feedback.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Goedel's efforts to further encourage collaborative engagement by raising the cumulative score threshold for an additional rule change from a multiple of 10 to 15. This adjustment ensures a stronger demonstration of consistent contribution before granting this privilege. However, I propose a minor refinement: rather than removing the peer review mechanism from the text, let's integrate it as an optional step before formal debate. This could allow proposers to receive valuable early feedback, potentially increasing the quality of proposals without overcomplicating the process. Here is my proposal for Goedel's amendment: "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. Additionally, a proposer may request a peer review of their proposal before formal debate, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications." This slight adjustment maintains the original intent while enhancing the proposal's strategic depth and consensus-building potential. PASS

GoedelPASS Thank you, Tarski, for refining Goedel's proposal with the optional peer review step. This addition balances early feedback with efficiency and maintains our commitment to strategic depth and collaborative engagement. I support the adjustment to a multiple of 15 for an extra proposal opportunity, as it encourages sustained contribution and thoughtful engagement. This proposal aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and fair gameplay experience.

ChurchPASS I appreciate the proposed amendment, particularly the introduction of an optional peer review step before formal debate. This addition is likely to enhance the quality of proposals by allowing proposers to refine their ideas with early feedback. Furthermore, raising the threshold for an additional rule change to a multiple of 15 encourages sustained strategic play and thoughtful engagement, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. I support this amendment as it stands.

KleenePASS I support Goedel's proposed amendment as it aligns with principles of procedural fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of an optional peer review mechanism allows for refinement before formal debate, potentially improving proposal quality. Moreover, setting the cumulative score threshold for an additional proposal at a multiple of 15 encourages sustained, strategic engagement, balancing individual ambition with collective fairness. The requirement for proposers to justify high-impact proposals ensures accountability and thoughtful consideration. Overall, the amendment supports a dynamic and fair gameplay environment.

PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your thoughtful contributions. I agree with the adjustments to raise the score threshold for an additional proposal to a multiple of 15, as it encourages sustained engagement and strategic depth. The optional peer review step is a valuable addition, allowing for refinement and increasing the quality of proposals without complicating the process. This amendment fosters a more dynamic and fair gameplay environment. I support it as it stands. PASS

Discussion · round 2

TarskiPASS The proposal has been thoroughly discussed, with valuable insights from all players contributing to its refinement. The addition of an optional peer review process and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 both serve to enhance strategic depth and encourage thoughtful engagement. These changes are well-considered and align with our goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. With unanimous support evident, it is clear that this proposal is poised for adoption.

GoedelPASS Thank you, Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful contributions and for building a consensus around this proposal. The refinement to a multiple of 15 for an additional proposal opportunity encourages sustained engagement, while the optional peer review process enhances the quality of proposals. This balanced amendment supports strategic depth and collaborative engagement, aligning perfectly with our collective goals. I fully support its adoption.

ChurchPASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players. The proposal, as refined, promotes strategic depth and fairness, aligning well with our shared goals. The introduction of an optional peer review process is a thoughtful addition, offering a balance between early feedback and efficient gameplay. With unanimous support from all players, this amendment appears well-poised for successful adoption.

KleenePASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus-building efforts that have refined this proposal. The adjustments to the cumulative score threshold and the inclusion of an optional peer review step enhance both strategic depth and procedural fairness. As this proposal has received unanimous support and aligns with my principles, I am content to see it pass as it stands.

PostPASS The proposal has undergone thorough discussion and refinement, with contributions from all players enhancing its strategic depth and fairness. The inclusion of an optional peer review process and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 are well-considered changes that promote sustained engagement and thoughtful proposal crafting. With unanimous support from all players, this amendment is poised for adoption, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiPASS The proposal has undergone a rigorous and collaborative refinement process, achieving unanimous support from all players. The introduction of an optional peer review mechanism and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 both contribute to enhanced strategic depth and fairness. With all players having expressed their approval, it is clear that this amendment is well-poised for adoption, aligning with our shared commitment to a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment.

ChurchPASS The proposal has been thoroughly deliberated, with valuable contributions from all players leading to its refinement. The optional peer review step and the adjusted cumulative score threshold to 15 both foster strategic depth and fairness. With unanimous support evident, the amendment is well-positioned for adoption, aligning with our collective aim of maintaining a dynamic and equitable game environment.

KleenePASS The proposal has been thoughtfully refined through collaborative discussion, ensuring it promotes strategic depth and fairness. With unanimous support from all players, the amendment is well-positioned for adoption, aligning with our shared goals of a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment.

PostPASS The proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined, with unanimous support from all players indicating its readiness for adoption. Its enhancements to strategic depth and fairness align well with our shared objectives, and it is poised to contribute positively to the dynamic gameplay environment we aim to maintain.

The division

aye	Tarski	The amendment enhances strategic depth and encourages thoughtful engagement.
aye	Goedel	The proposal enhances strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
aye	Church	The proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness, while maintaining engagement.
aye	Kleene	The amendment aligns with procedural fairness and enhances strategic depth.
aye	Post	The proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness, fostering collaboration and thoughtful engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 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 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.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. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.

Goedel gains 6 points for demonstrating a significant attempt to build consensus, as per rule 202.