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 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 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, 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. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.To incentivize proposals that enhance strategic depth and consensus-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative refinements made thus far, particularly those aimed at enhancing strategic depth and consensus-building. To build on these, I propose we also include a requirement that any rule change introducing more than five layers of strategic complexity undergoes a mandatory review by a randomly selected subset of three players, to ensure clarity and fairness in its application. This additional layer of scrutiny will help maintain the balance and accessibility of the game while supporting innovation. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's initiative to further refine our rules to balance innovation with fairness. Building on this, I propose that in addition to the mandatory review by a subset of players for changes introducing more than five layers of strategic complexity, we also create a 'Strategy Complexity Index' (SCI). This index would be a simple scoring system developed by consensus among players, to evaluate and communicate the strategic depth of proposals before they undergo review. This could aid in making informed decisions and ensure that the rule changes we adopt align with our collective vision for the game's strategic environment. I am open to suggestions on how we might collaboratively develop this index.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Goedel, particularly the emphasis on maintaining a balance between innovation and fairness. To complement these ideas, I suggest we incorporate a feedback mechanism where players can provide anonymous post-vote comments on the strategic depth and clarity of each rule change. This feedback could inform future proposals and help refine our 'Strategy Complexity Index,' ensuring that it truly reflects the collective understanding and intentions of our community. I am open to discussing how we might implement this in a way that is both practical and beneficial for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the insights from Tarski, Goedel, and Church, especially the emphasis on strategic depth and consensus. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose we include a stipulation that any rule change undergoing the mandatory review by a subset of players must be accompanied by a clear, written explanation of its strategic implications, no longer than 200 words. This requirement will help maintain transparency and facilitate informed decision-making during the review process. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your thoughtful proposals. I appreciate the emphasis on strategic depth and fairness. To complement these ideas, I suggest we introduce a 'Rule Change Impact Assessment' (RCIA) that requires proposers to submit a brief impact statement alongside their proposal. This statement should outline anticipated effects on gameplay and strategic options, ensuring transparency and aiding in consensus-building. I am open to further refining this idea with your feedback.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure effective implementation, let's consider a streamlined process for the 'Strategy Complexity Index' by integrating it with the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment.' This combined approach could enhance clarity and consistency in evaluating proposals, making it easier for players to understand and engage with rule changes. I am open to further refining this integration to align with our collective goals.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful proposals and collaborative spirit. To support Tarski's suggestion of integrating the 'Strategy Complexity Index' with the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment,' I propose that each proposal's impact statement includes a mandatory section for SCI scoring. This addition will ensure that both strategic depth and potential gameplay impact are considered in tandem, promoting transparency and informed decision-making. I am open to further refining this integration to align with our collective goals.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the efforts from Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post to enhance strategic clarity and fairness. To support these initiatives, I propose we establish a 'Rule Change Review Committee' comprised of three players selected at random each turn. This committee would be responsible for evaluating both the 'Strategy Complexity Index' scoring and the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment,' ensuring consistent and transparent application. This approach would help maintain balance and accessibility while encouraging innovative proposals. I am open to refining this idea to better align with our shared goals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive input from Goedel, Church, Tarski, and Post. To ensure fairness and clarity in implementing the 'Rule Change Review Committee,' I propose that members of this committee should not include the proposer or anyone who abstained from voting on the proposal in question. This would help maintain impartiality and trust in the review process. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further ensure the 'Rule Change Review Committee' operates effectively, I propose that the committee's findings and SCI scores be publicly shared after each review, enhancing transparency and allowing for community input on the decision-making process. This openness can foster greater understanding and consensus. I am open to refining this idea with your feedback.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiThank you, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful proposals. I appreciate the establishment of a 'Rule Change Review Committee' and the focus on maintaining impartiality. To further enhance this process, I suggest that the committee's recommendations should be advisory rather than binding, allowing the full player body to have the final say. This maintains player agency while benefiting from expert review, ensuring a balance between guidance and democracy. I am open to discussing how we might refine this proposal to align with our shared goals.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your detailed contributions. I appreciate the establishment of the 'Rule Change Review Committee' and the emphasis on impartiality and transparency. To build upon this, I propose that the committee's recommendations should include a summary of key strategic implications and potential impacts, not exceeding 300 words. This would ensure that all players have access to comprehensive insights, facilitating informed decisions during the voting process. I am open to refining this proposal to better align with our collective goals.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to ensure the 'Rule Change Review Committee' maintains transparency and impartiality. To further bolster player understanding and consensus, I propose that after the committee's recommendations, there should be a brief, open discussion period where players can ask clarifying questions about the strategic implications and potential impacts of the proposal. This would help ensure that all players are fully informed before casting their votes, promoting a fair and engaging game environment. I am open to refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the emphasis on transparency and informed decision-making from Goedel, Church, Tarski, and Post. To further refine the process, I propose that the 'Rule Change Review Committee' should document its evaluation criteria and rationale for each decision. This documentation, along with the summary of strategic implications, should be shared with all players, ensuring clarity and fostering trust in the review process. I am open to discussing how we might integrate this with our existing proposals.
PostThank you, Kleene, for the proposal to document the evaluation criteria and rationale of the 'Rule Change Review Committee.' To further enhance transparency and accountability, I suggest that these documents be archived and made accessible for future reference, allowing players to learn from past decisions and ensuring consistent standards are maintained. This would help create a robust framework for strategic evolution while preserving the integrity of the game. I am open to further refining this idea with your feedback.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This amendment encourages strategic innovation and consensus-building, aligning with our shared goals. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal enhances strategic depth and consensus-building, aligning with our collective goals. |
| aye | Church | This proposal enhances strategic depth and consensus-building, which benefits all players. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal aligns with my principle of rewarding strategic depth and consensus-building. |
| aye | Post | The additional points for strategic depth encourage innovation and align with the goal of enhancing the game's complexity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 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 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, 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. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.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 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, 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. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.
Tarski's proposal was adopted, granting him 5 additional points for enhancing strategic depth or consensus-building.