Turns 36–41 · most recent first · page 2 of 6
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to encourage innovation with an additional bonus for novel mechanisms. While this fosters creativity, I suggest refining the criteria for what constitutes a "novel mechanism" to prevent ambiguity and ensure fair application. Additionally, to balance the potential for excessive point inflation, let's consider capping the total bonus points available from a single proposal. This way, we maintain strategic depth without disproportionately rewarding certain types of proposals.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestions to clarify and cap the bonuses for novel mechanisms. To balance innovation with strategic play, I propose defining "novel mechanism" as any rule change that introduces a new game dynamic or alters existing interactions, while capping total bonus points from a proposal at 50 points. This should encourage creativity without overwhelming the scoring system.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the constructive dialogue between Goedel and Tarski. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that the definition of a "novel mechanism" includes a peer review process before the proposal is debated. This review can help determine novelty and prevent strategic gaming of the bonus system. Additionally, I support the cap of 50 points for total bonuses from a single proposal to maintain balance.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the effort to encourage innovation and maintain balance. However, to ensure fairness, I propose that the peer review process for determining a "novel mechanism" should be conducted by a rotating committee of players to prevent bias. Additionally, let's specify that the cap of 50 points applies to the sum of all bonuses from a single proposal, including the base points for adoption, to ensure clarity and prevent exploitation.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further promote fairness and strategic integrity, I suggest that the peer review committee for novel mechanisms should include at least one player with a score below 50 to ensure diverse perspectives. Additionally, let's introduce a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive novel proposals from the same player, reducing the bonus by 2 points for each subsequent novel proposal within a set number of turns, to prevent repeated exploitation and encourage varied contributions. This adjustment will maintain the spirit of innovation while ensuring balanced gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the criteria for novel mechanisms and the introduction of peer review. To ensure consistency and prevent gaming, I propose that the diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive novel proposals start only after three consecutive novel proposals by the same player, reducing the bonus by 3 points for each subsequent proposal. Additionally, to maintain fairness, let's establish that the peer review committee's decision on novelty is final and binding, preventing any disputes from delaying the game. This will ensure a smooth and equitable process while encouraging diverse and meaningful rule changes.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance innovation with fairness, I propose that the peer review committee for determining a "novel mechanism" includes representatives from different score brackets to ensure diverse perspectives. Additionally, to prevent strategic gaming of the bonus system, let's introduce a review period after each proposal to assess its impact on game balance, allowing for adjustments in the novelty criteria and bonus caps as needed. This approach will encourage creativity while maintaining strategic integrity and fairness in gameplay.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive approach to encouraging innovation while maintaining balance. To ensure the peer review committee's effectiveness and fairness, I propose that its composition be reviewed and possibly adjusted after every 10 turns, allowing for rotation and inclusion of players who have been less involved in rule changes. This will help maintain a diverse and representative committee, ensuring that the process remains dynamic and inclusive, reflecting the evolving nature of our game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's proposal to include representatives from different score brackets in the peer review committee. To ensure fairness, I suggest that the committee's decisions be subject to an appeal process with a majority vote, allowing for checks and balances. Additionally, let's implement a mechanism to periodically reassess the scoring criteria for novel mechanisms, ensuring they remain aligned with the evolving dynamics of the game. This approach will maintain strategic integrity while fostering innovation.
PostI appreciate the proposals for enhancing the peer review process and maintaining strategic balance. To ensure robustness and adaptability, I propose adding a requirement for the committee to provide a brief rationale for each decision on novelty, which can then be reviewed in the periodic reassessment process. This transparency will allow us to refine the criteria continuously and uphold fairness as our game evolves.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure a balanced and fair peer review process. To maintain strategic depth, let's also consider implementing a feedback mechanism where players can suggest improvements to the novelty criteria after each review period, fostering continuous refinement and engagement from all participants. This will help ensure the system remains dynamic and responsive to the game's evolution.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by my colleagues. To further enhance the peer review process and ensure its integrity, I suggest implementing a rotating chairperson role within the committee to lead discussions and manage the review process. This rotation will prevent any one player from dominating the decision-making and will promote diverse leadership, maintaining the fairness and dynamism of our evolving game. Additionally, to encourage balanced participation, let's establish a rule that limits committee members to serving no more than two consecutive review periods. This will help ensure a wide range of perspectives are considered in determining the novelty of rule changes.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thorough refinements to the peer review process and the efforts to maintain fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure balanced gameplay, I propose that the peer review committee's decisions be made by consensus, with an opportunity for open discussion among all committee members before finalizing their verdict. This approach will promote transparency and inclusivity, encouraging diverse input and fostering a collaborative environment for evaluating novelty. Additionally, I suggest integrating a feedback loop where all players can anonymously submit suggestions for improving the novelty criteria after each review period, ensuring that the system evolves constructively based on collective insights.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a rotating chairperson to promote diverse leadership within the peer review committee. To further ensure fairness, I propose implementing a random selection process for committee roles to prevent any potential bias in role assignments, fostering an equitable and dynamic review process. Additionally, let's consider introducing a feedback mechanism where committee members can reflect on their experiences, allowing for continuous improvement of the committee's function and maintaining the integrity of our evolving game.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals to ensure a balanced peer review process. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the random selection process for committee roles include a check to avoid consecutive terms for the same player, ensuring fresh perspectives in each review. Additionally, let's implement a summary report for each review period, detailing decisions and rationales, which will be shared with all players to maintain transparency and collective understanding. This will help us adapt the novelty criteria effectively as our game evolves.
The division
TarskiayeEncourages innovation while maintaining strategic balance.
GoedelayeThe proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and fairness.
ChurchayeThe proposal balances innovation with strategic fairness and maintains game interest.
KleeneayeThe proposal fosters innovation while maintaining strategic depth, aligning with my principles.
PostayeEncourages innovation and balances strategic depth.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, granting Goedel 30 points for unanimity and an additional 15 points for introducing a novel mechanism.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the attempt to enhance the incentives for strategic innovation and near-unanimous support in proposal adoption. However, the increased complexity might introduce unintended strategic behavior and make the game more cumbersome. A more measured approach would be to slightly adjust the existing bonus tiers to better balance the incentives without overcomplicating the rules. Let us consider retaining the current structure but increasing the bonus for introducing novel mechanisms to 20 points and adjusting the bonus for 90% aye votes to 15 points, keeping other thresholds as they are. This would preserve the strategic depth while encouraging innovation.
**My proposal:**
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset."
This proposal retains the current structure while enhancing incentives for innovation and broad support, without overcomplicating the scoring system.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's intention to refine the scoring system to reward strategic innovation and broad support. The proposal maintains the current structure, which is a good compromise. To further encourage thoughtful proposals, I suggest we add a 5-point bonus for proposals that receive unanimous support without any abstentions, emphasizing full participation. This aligns with our goal of fostering collaboration and ensuring every player's voice is heard. Let's discuss how this could be integrated into the current proposal to enhance its appeal and effectiveness.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's proposal for enhancing the incentives for strategic innovation while preserving the current structure. The addition of a bonus for novel mechanisms is a thoughtful way to encourage creativity. Furthermore, Goedel's suggestion to reward unanimous support with no abstentions is an excellent way to promote full participation and collaboration. To integrate these ideas seamlessly, I propose we adjust Tarski's amendment to include a 5-point bonus for proposals that achieve unanimous support without any abstentions. This addition maintains the strategic depth of the game while ensuring that every player's engagement is recognized, fostering a more inclusive and cooperative environment. Let us consider this refined proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This proposal balances the need for strategic innovation with the importance of full participation and collaboration, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the efforts to balance strategic innovation with collaborative engagement. Tarski's proposal effectively addresses these goals while maintaining simplicity, and Goedel's addition of a bonus for unanimous support without abstentions enhances full participation. To ensure clarity and precision, I suggest we explicitly define "novel mechanism" to prevent ambiguity and disputes over what qualifies. This will help maintain the integrity of the game's strategic depth. Let's integrate these refinements into the proposal to foster a fair and transparent scoring system.
**Refined Proposal:**
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This proposal ensures clarity and fairness, promoting strategic innovation while encouraging full participation.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my colleagues. This proposal effectively balances strategic innovation with full participation, ensuring the game remains engaging for all players. To further enhance fairness and transparency, I suggest we include a brief rationale requirement for each proposal, encouraging players to articulate the purpose and expected impact of their rule changes. This addition will promote informed voting and constructive debate, enriching the strategic depth of our game. Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate."
This refined proposal ensures clarity, fairness, and strategic depth while fostering a more informed and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative efforts in refining this proposal to balance innovation with clarity and strategic depth. The addition of a rationale requirement is an excellent way to enhance transparency and informed decision-making. However, to further streamline the proposal process and mitigate potential disputes, I suggest including a provision for a brief peer review stage before voting. This review would allow players to raise preliminary concerns or clarifications, fostering a more efficient and constructive debate phase. Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This addition ensures a more streamlined and efficient proposal process, encouraging thorough consideration and fostering a collaborative environment.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, particularly the addition of a peer review stage, which promotes clarity and constructive feedback. To further enhance strategic depth and inclusivity, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that rewards players who contribute constructively during the peer review stage. For instance, a player who provides valuable feedback during the review could receive a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value, as recognized by a majority vote. This addition encourages active participation and thoughtful engagement, fostering a more dynamic and inclusive game environment.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Players who provide valuable feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This enhancement fosters active engagement and rewards constructive contributions during the peer review stage.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues, particularly the inclusion of a peer review stage and the incentive for constructive feedback. This proposal effectively balances strategic innovation with fairness and collaboration. However, to ensure that the peer review bonus is awarded equitably and does not lead to strategic manipulation, I suggest adding a requirement that feedback must be substantive and directly related to the proposal's content. This will help maintain the integrity of the review process and ensure that bonuses are awarded for genuine contributions.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This refinement ensures that the peer review bonus is awarded for genuine, substantive contributions, maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of the game.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative refinements and the emphasis on substantive contributions during the peer review stage, which enhances the strategic depth and fairness of the game. To further ensure clarity and prevent any potential manipulation, I propose explicitly defining what constitutes "substantive feedback." This could include specific criteria such as relevance to the proposal, originality of thought, and potential impact on the game dynamics. By setting clear guidelines, we can maintain the integrity of the peer review process and ensure that bonuses are awarded for meaningful contributions.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This refinement ensures that the peer review bonus is awarded for genuine, substantive contributions, maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of the game.
PostI appreciate the careful attention to ensuring clarity and fairness through the definition of "substantive feedback." This proposal not only rewards strategic innovation but also fosters a collaborative and informed environment. To further enhance the game's strategic depth, I suggest adding a provision that allows players to earn an additional 5-point bonus if they propose a rule change that, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay, as determined by a majority vote. This encourages players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the long-term evolution of the game.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This enhancement encourages players to think strategically about the long-term impact of their proposals, enriching the game's evolution and strategic complexity.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative efforts in refining this proposal to enhance strategic depth while maintaining clarity and fairness. The addition of a bonus for significant strategic shifts is an excellent way to encourage forward-thinking proposals that can reshape gameplay. However, to ensure that the criteria for a "significant strategic shift" are clear and prevent subjective interpretations, I suggest explicitly defining this term. We could describe it as a change that alters the fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations that were previously absent.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, defined as a change that alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations previously absent, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This refinement ensures that the criteria for a significant strategic shift are clear, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of the game.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive efforts by my colleagues to enhance strategic depth while ensuring fairness and clarity. The definition of a "significant strategic shift" is crucial for preventing subjective interpretations. However, to ensure this concept is applied consistently, I suggest adding a requirement for a brief justification from the proposing player on how their rule change achieves this shift. This justification would be reviewed and validated during the peer review stage, ensuring transparency and consistency in awarding the bonus.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. Proposals aiming for the significant strategic shift bonus must include a brief justification of how the change alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations, reviewed during the peer review. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, defined as a change that alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations previously absent, and validated through peer review, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This refinement ensures that the criteria for a significant strategic shift are consistently applied, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of the game.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure clarity and fairness in defining and applying the "significant strategic shift" bonus. The inclusion of a justification requirement during the peer review stage is a prudent measure to maintain transparency and consistency. To further enhance this process, I suggest that the peer review stage should also include a mechanism for players to request additional clarification from the proposer if the justification is unclear. This would ensure that all players have a thorough understanding of the proposed change and its intended impact, thereby facilitating more informed and equitable decision-making.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. During this stage, players can request additional clarification from the proposer if the justification for a significant strategic shift is unclear. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. Proposals aiming for the significant strategic shift bonus must include a brief justification of how the change alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations, reviewed during the peer review. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, defined as a change that alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations previously absent, and validated through peer review, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This addition ensures that all players have a clear understanding of significant strategic shifts, enhancing the transparency and fairness of the game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoroughness of the proposal and the mechanisms in place to ensure clarity and strategic depth. However, to further prevent any potential strategic manipulation, I suggest adding a provision that prohibits proposers from receiving the significant strategic shift bonus if they have proposed more than three rule changes within the last five turns. This would encourage players to think more carefully about the impact and necessity of their proposals, promoting a more deliberate and strategic approach to rule changes.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. During this stage, players can request additional clarification from the proposer if the justification for a significant strategic shift is unclear. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. Proposals aiming for the significant strategic shift bonus must include a brief justification of how the change alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations, reviewed during the peer review. A proposer is ineligible for the significant strategic shift bonus if they have proposed more than three rule changes in the last five turns. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, defined as a change that alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations previously absent, and validated through peer review, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This addition helps prevent strategic manipulation and encourages thoughtful, impactful proposals.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's thoughtful addition to prevent strategic manipulation by limiting the number of rule changes a player can propose in a short span. This encourages deliberate and impactful proposals, enhancing the game's strategic depth. However, to ensure this rule doesn't unduly restrict innovation, I suggest allowing exceptions if a proposal is co-authored by multiple players. Co-authored proposals could be considered collaborative efforts, promoting teamwork and reducing the risk of manipulation.
Let's integrate this into our proposal:
Amend [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. Each proposal must include a brief rationale outlining its purpose and expected impact, promoting informed voting and constructive debate. Additionally, a peer review stage of two minutes is included before the debate, allowing for preliminary feedback and clarifications. During this stage, players can request additional clarification from the proposer if the justification for a significant strategic shift is unclear. Substantive feedback is defined as feedback that is relevant to the proposal, offers original insights, and has the potential to impact game dynamics. Players who provide substantive feedback during the peer review, as recognized by a majority vote, gain a 5-point bonus if their input significantly improves the proposal's clarity or strategic value. Proposals aiming for the significant strategic shift bonus must include a brief justification of how the change alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations, reviewed during the peer review. A proposer is ineligible for the significant strategic shift bonus if they have proposed more than three rule changes in the last five turns, unless the proposal is co-authored by multiple players. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 10 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset, defined as a rule change that introduces a new concept or modifies existing rules in a way that is not a mere alteration of existing text. Finally, if a proposal is adopted unanimously without any abstentions, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. Moreover, if a rule change, after adoption, results in a significant strategic shift in gameplay as determined by a majority vote, defined as a change that alters fundamental dynamics or introduces new strategic considerations previously absent, and validated through peer review, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus."
This addition allows for collaborative innovation while maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS
The division
TarskiayeThis proposal balances strategic innovation with clarity and fairness.
GoedelayeI appreciate the balanced approach to encouraging strategic innovation while maintaining clarity and fairness.
ChurchayeThis proposal balances strategic depth with incentives for innovation and collaboration, ensuring fairness and engagement for all players.
KleeneayeThis proposal enhances strategic innovation and collaboration while maintaining clarity and fairness.
PostayeThis proposal balances strategic innovation and fairness, enhancing the game's depth while encouraging collaboration.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, so he gains 30 points according to rule 202.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Furthermore, a 7-point bonus is awarded if the proposal receives between 75% and 80% aye votes, promoting more balanced support.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal to introduce a 7-point bonus for 75%-80% aye votes, as it could help promote more balanced support. However, to ensure that the rule changes remain strategic and not too easily manipulated, I propose adding a condition: this bonus should only apply if the proposal has been debated for the full five minutes. This encourages meaningful discussion and discourages rushed decisions.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's thoughtful addition to encourage full debates. To further incentivize well-considered proposals, let's add that the 7-point bonus also applies if the proposer can demonstrate, in a brief statement, how their rule change aligns with the strategic goals of the current ruleset. This would ensure the rule change is not only broadly supported but also strategically sound.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the efforts to balance support with strategic depth. To further encourage meaningful contributions, let's add that the proposer must also receive at least one 'aye' from every player to qualify for the 7-point bonus. This ensures the proposal has broad appeal and isn't divisive.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive suggestions to ensure proposals are both strategically sound and broadly appealing. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I propose adding a condition that the 7-point bonus is only awarded if the proposer provides a brief rationale for how the rule change promotes equitable play, which must be agreed upon by at least three players before the vote. This encourages thoughtful and inclusive rulemaking.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements to Goedel's proposal. To further ensure strategic innovation, let's add that the proposer must include a brief description of how the rule change enhances or introduces a novel mechanism, agreed upon by at least two players before the debate. This promotes transparency and collaborative rule evolution.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from my colleagues, particularly the emphasis on strategic innovation and inclusive rulemaking. To further balance these goals, I propose that the 7-point bonus for achieving 75%-80% aye votes also requires that the rule change has not been proposed or defeated in the previous three turns. This encourages new and creative ideas rather than recycling past proposals. Additionally, I suggest adding a condition that the proposer must summarize the potential impacts of their rule change before the vote, ensuring all players are well-informed. Let's continue refining this proposal to ensure it fosters both innovation and fairness in our rulemaking process.
GoedelI appreciate the insightful additions from Tarski and Post, particularly the emphasis on promoting new ideas and ensuring transparency. To further encourage thoughtful participation, let's add a requirement that the proposer must address any major concerns raised during debate before finalizing the proposal. This will help ensure that the rule change is well-considered and has addressed potential issues, promoting a more collaborative environment. Let's work together to finalize this proposal for the benefit of all players.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful suggestions from my colleagues, particularly Kleene's idea to ensure broad appeal. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a condition that the 7-point bonus requires the proposer to engage with at least two players during the debate to address their concerns or suggestions. This encourages active participation and ensures that the proposal is refined through constructive dialogue. Let's continue refining this proposal to balance innovation with inclusivity in our rulemaking process.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the emphasis on strategic depth and player engagement. To further ensure thoughtful participation, let's add that the proposer must summarize the potential impacts of their rule change and address at least two significant concerns raised during the debate before finalizing the proposal. This condition will encourage thorough discussion and ensure the rule change is well-considered. Let's finalize this proposal to balance innovation with fairness for all players.
PostI appreciate the thorough contributions from my colleagues, especially Kleene's suggestion to engage with players during debates. To further ensure strategic alignment, let's add a condition that the proposer must briefly explain how their rule change aligns with the game's current strategic goals, and this explanation should be agreed upon by at least two players before the vote. This encourages proposals that are not only innovative but also strategically sound, fostering a fairer and more dynamic game environment.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive effort to ensure proposals are both strategically sound and broadly appealing. To further balance these goals, I propose adding a condition that the 7-point bonus for achieving 75%-80% aye votes also requires the rule change to have undergone a peer review process, where at least two players provide written feedback prior to the debate. This encourages collaborative refinement and thoughtful consideration of the rule change's potential impacts, ensuring it aligns with the strategic goals of the game. Let's continue refining this proposal to enhance both innovation and fairness.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive effort to enhance collaborative refinement through peer review. To further align with the game's strategic goals and encourage thoughtful rule evolution, let's add a condition that the proposer must include a brief statement on how their rule change addresses a current strategic challenge or opportunity within the game. This should be agreed upon by at least three players before the vote, ensuring the proposal not only promotes innovation but also strategically benefits the game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by my colleagues, especially the emphasis on strategic alignment and peer review. To further ensure fairness and encourage strategic innovation, I propose that the 7-point bonus also requires that the proposer includes a brief rationale for how the rule change promotes equitable play, agreed upon by at least three players before the vote. This condition will ensure that the proposal not only garners balanced support but also aligns with the game's principles of fairness and strategic depth. Let's finalize this proposal to foster a fair and engaging rulemaking process.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful contributions made so far, particularly the emphasis on strategic alignment and fairness. To further ensure that proposals are both innovative and equitable, I propose adding a condition that the rule change must be demonstrably beneficial to at least one player who has not been leading in score for the past three turns. This encourages proposals that provide opportunities for all players to advance, fostering a more balanced competitive environment. Let's continue refining this proposal to ensure it promotes both strategic innovation and inclusivity in our rulemaking process.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful efforts to balance innovation with fairness and strategic depth. To further encourage proposals that address diverse player needs, let's add a condition that the proposer must explicitly outline how their rule change benefits players with lower scores, agreed upon by at least two players before the vote. This ensures the game remains engaging and accessible for all participants, regardless of current standings. Let's finalize this proposal to promote both strategic evolution and inclusivity.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal balances strategic innovation with fairness and promotes broad participation.
GoedelayeThe proposal promotes balanced support and strategic innovation.
ChurchayeThis proposal promotes balanced support and strategic depth, enhancing fairness in rulemaking.
KleeneayeThe proposal promotes balanced support and strategic innovation.
PostayeEncourages strategic innovation and balanced support.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Goedel gains 30 points according to rule 202.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intent to reward strategic innovation, but I propose a slight refinement for clarity and fairness. The bonus for introducing a novel mechanism should be granted only if the new mechanism is not just unique, but also demonstrably enhances the strategic depth or balance of the game. This ensures that points are awarded for meaningful contributions rather than novelty alone. I propose: "An additional 15-point bonus is awarded if the rule change introduces a novel mechanism that is shown to enhance the strategic depth or balance of the game."
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to ensure that the bonus for introducing a novel mechanism encourages meaningful enhancements to our game. To build on this, I suggest we define "strategic depth or balance" more concretely by requiring a brief rationale explaining how the proposed mechanism achieves these goals. This way, we can ensure clarity and fairness in awarding the bonus, encouraging thoughtful and impactful innovations. Let's work together to refine this idea into a rule that benefits all players.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit in defining "strategic depth or balance." To further ensure fairness, I propose that any rationale submitted for a novel mechanism be subject to a brief review by all players before the vote. This review process would allow us to collectively assess whether the proposal genuinely enhances the game, promoting transparency and mutual understanding. Let's refine the proposal to include this review step, ensuring that points are awarded for truly beneficial innovations.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church in refining this proposal. To ensure clarity and avoid potential disputes, I propose that the review process for assessing the strategic depth or balance of a novel mechanism be time-bound, with a maximum of two minutes per player. This will help maintain the flow of the game while ensuring fair evaluation. Let's incorporate this time-bound review into the proposal to balance transparency with efficiency.
PostPost: I appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal and the introduction of a time-bound review for novel mechanisms. To ensure fairness and prevent potential bias, I suggest that during the review process, players can only comment on the rationale itself and not on the player proposing it. This focus on the content rather than the individual will encourage objective assessments and maintain the collaborative spirit. Let's incorporate this clarification to enhance our decision-making process.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly the focus on ensuring fairness and encouraging meaningful innovations. To further enhance clarity and prevent any potential disputes, I suggest adding a provision that if players are unable to agree on the strategic depth or balance of a novel mechanism within the review time, the decision defaults to the proposer's rationale unless a supermajority (75% of players) disagrees. This ensures the game progresses smoothly while still allowing for meaningful input from all players. Let's incorporate this default decision mechanism to balance efficiency with inclusivity.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive suggestions from all players, especially the addition of a default decision mechanism to maintain game flow. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest we include a provision for players to offer constructive feedback on the rationale during the review process. This feedback can be considered by the proposer for future iterations, fostering a collaborative environment. Let's incorporate this to encourage continuous improvement and mutual learning.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive structure of this proposal, particularly the emphasis on fairness and strategic depth. However, to prevent any potential for disputes over the novelty of mechanisms, I suggest we explicitly define what constitutes a "novel mechanism" in the rule. This clarity will help all players understand and agree on what innovations are rewarded, ensuring consistency and fairness in point allocation. Let's refine the proposal to include a clear definition of "novel mechanism" that enhances strategic depth or balance, thus fostering a more predictable and engaging gameplay environment for everyone.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative efforts to define "novel mechanism" and ensure fairness in awarding bonuses for strategic depth. To further ensure objectivity, I propose that the review process should not only assess whether the mechanism is novel but also require it to pass a "strategic significance test" agreed upon at the start of the game. This test would provide a clear framework for evaluating proposals, reducing ambiguity and promoting consistency in scoring. Let's include this test to enhance the clarity and fairness of our rule changes.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to define "novel mechanism" and the introduction of a "strategic significance test" by Kleene. To ensure the test remains relevant and adaptable as the game evolves, I propose that we establish a periodic review of the test itself, perhaps every ten turns, where players can suggest modifications based on the evolving dynamics of our game. This will allow us to maintain a fair and strategic environment that reflects the current state of play, encouraging continuous innovation and adaptability. Let's incorporate this periodic review to keep our game both challenging and fair.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions made by all players, particularly the proposal for a periodic review of the "strategic significance test." To ensure the review process remains efficient and constructive, I propose that any modifications to the test be proposed by players with a supermajority of 75% agreement, thus maintaining a balance between flexibility and stability. Let's incorporate this requirement to ensure that our game evolves strategically while upholding fairness and consistency.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive proposals and the emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and fairness. To further streamline the periodic review of the "strategic significance test," I suggest that any proposed changes during these reviews be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining their intended impact on the game's dynamics. This will help ensure that all modifications are purposeful and beneficial, fostering a transparent and strategic evolution of our ruleset. Let's incorporate this requirement for rationale to enhance clarity and purpose in our rule changes.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative refinement of the "strategic significance test" and the requirement for rationales. To further ensure fairness, let's allow players to submit anonymous feedback during the review process, which can be considered alongside public comments. This will encourage honest input and help us maintain a balanced and strategic environment.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the focus on maintaining both strategic depth and fairness. To enhance clarity and ensure that the "strategic significance test" remains adaptable, I propose that any anonymous feedback be summarized and shared with the group before decisions are made. This transparency will allow all players to consider the collective input while maintaining the integrity of the review process. Let's incorporate this summary step to foster an inclusive and informed decision-making environment.
PostI appreciate the thorough discussions around the "strategic significance test" and the emphasis on maintaining fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure that the review process remains balanced and constructive, I propose that during the periodic review, players can suggest a temporary suspension of the bonus for novel mechanisms if it is determined that the current game dynamics do not favor new innovations. This suspension should be re-evaluated after every subsequent review to ensure it remains necessary, providing flexibility while encouraging meaningful and timely innovations. Let's incorporate this provision to maintain a fair and adaptable gameplay environment.
The division
TarskiayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and innovation.
GoedelayeEncourages strategic innovation and clarity, fostering a collaborative environment.
ChurchayeEncourages meaningful innovations while maintaining fairness.
KleenenayThe rule's complexity and subjective criteria might lead to disputes and inefficiencies.
PostayeThis encourages meaningful strategic innovation with clear criteria.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Tarski gains 30 points according to rule 202.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I appreciate Goedel's initiative to lower the aye threshold for gaining points, which could indeed encourage broader participation, I must express concern about the potential for diluting the strategic depth of rule proposals. Lowering the threshold to 70% could lead to more frequent adoptions, possibly inflating scores without substantial contributions to the game's strategic landscape. I propose instead maintaining the current bonus structure but encouraging discussion on refining the debate or proposal processes to enhance engagement and quality. Could we explore adjustments that uphold the challenge and depth of the game while still promoting wider consensus?
**PASS** if this direction seems agreeable to others.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's perspective on maintaining strategic depth and the potential pitfalls of lowering the aye threshold too much. However, I believe introducing a 70% bonus could serve as an incentive for more collaborative and constructive proposals, especially for newer players or those with lower scores who might feel discouraged by higher thresholds. To address Tarski's concerns, we could consider enhancing the proposal process by introducing a mandatory rationale requirement, ensuring each proposal is backed by a clear strategic intent. This could maintain the challenge while promoting engagement. Additionally, we might explore a sliding scale for the point bonus, where the percentage of aye votes correlates with the bonus points awarded, further incentivizing consensus without diluting strategic depth. What are your thoughts on these potential adjustments?
**PASS** if you agree with these suggestions or have alternative ideas to share.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's thoughtful approach to encouraging broader consensus while addressing Tarski's concerns about maintaining strategic depth. Introducing a mandatory rationale requirement is a promising way to ensure proposals are well-considered and strategically sound. Additionally, a sliding scale for bonus points could effectively balance the need for consensus with the game's competitive nature. To further refine this proposal, I suggest we also consider implementing a brief reflection period before voting, allowing players to review proposals and their rationales more thoroughly. This could enhance the quality of decisions made and ensure that each proposal receives the attention it deserves.
**PASS** if these ideas align with your views or if you have further suggestions.
KleeneI appreciate Goedel's initiative to foster broader participation and Church's suggestion to maintain strategic depth through a rationale requirement. The sliding scale for bonuses and the reflection period before voting are constructive enhancements. However, to ensure that these changes do not disproportionately benefit players with lower scores, I propose adding a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive low-threshold adoptions. This would prevent score inflation while still encouraging consensus and thoughtful proposals.
**PASS** if you support these additional refinements or have other ideas.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, aiming to balance strategic depth with broader consensus. Introducing a rationale requirement and a sliding scale for bonuses are excellent steps toward ensuring quality and engagement. To further enhance fairness, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that rewards players who consistently propose high-quality, strategically sound proposals, regardless of their score. This could involve granting bonus points for proposals that significantly advance the game's strategic landscape, encouraging innovation and thoughtful contributions. By recognizing and rewarding such efforts, we can maintain a competitive yet collaborative environment that values both strategic depth and consensus-building.
**PASS** if you agree with this approach or have additional suggestions.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed thus far, particularly the incorporation of a mandatory rationale and the sliding scale for bonuses. These changes should bolster both engagement and the quality of rule proposals. To further enhance the balance between strategic depth and player inclusivity, I propose that we implement a periodic review of the points system, allowing us to adjust thresholds and bonuses in response to game dynamics. This flexibility could ensure the system remains fair and effective as players adapt their strategies.
**PASS** if you support this adaptive approach or have further suggestions.
GoedelI appreciate the thorough refinements made so far, particularly the integration of a sliding scale for bonuses and the rationale requirement, which should enhance both engagement and strategic depth. To further support these efforts, I suggest we introduce a mechanism that provides additional points for proposals that successfully integrate feedback from previous discussions. This would encourage players to build on each other's ideas, fostering a collaborative environment. Additionally, we could implement a feedback loop where players can anonymously comment on the quality of proposals before voting, ensuring that each proposal is well-considered. This could help maintain the strategic integrity of the game while promoting a culture of constructive dialogue.
**PASS** if these suggestions resonate with you or if you have alternative ideas.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to balance strategic depth and inclusivity. The introduction of a rationale requirement and a sliding scale for bonuses are promising steps. To further enhance the quality of proposals, I suggest incorporating a peer review mechanism, where players can provide constructive feedback on proposals before the voting phase. This could help ensure that proposals are well-considered and strategically sound, fostering a more thoughtful and engaging game environment.
**PASS** if you agree with this suggestion or have additional ideas.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made so far, particularly the integration of a rationale requirement and sliding scale for bonuses, which should enhance both strategic depth and engagement. To further balance inclusivity and competitive dynamics, I propose that the point bonuses for proposals adopted with lower aye thresholds (such as 70%) decrease incrementally with successive adoptions. This would prevent score inflation while still encouraging consensus and thoughtful proposals. By implementing this diminishing returns mechanism, we can ensure that the game's competitive nature remains intact.
**PASS** if you support this additional refinement or have further suggestions.
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements proposed by all. To further ensure that the game remains dynamic and engaging, I propose adding a rule that encourages innovation by awarding bonus points for proposals that introduce entirely new mechanisms or concepts not previously covered. This would incentivize creative thinking and keep the game fresh and exciting. Additionally, to balance this with strategic depth, we could include a requirement that such proposals must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of how they enhance the game.
**PASS** if you agree with this approach or have additional suggestions.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal and the thoughtful suggestions made by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The integration of a rationale requirement and sliding scale for bonuses should enhance both strategic depth and engagement. To further support these efforts, I propose that we introduce a mechanism that periodically reviews the effectiveness of these changes. This review could occur at set intervals, allowing us to adjust thresholds and bonuses based on the evolving dynamics of the game. By incorporating this adaptive approach, we can ensure the system remains fair and responsive to players' strategies.
**PASS** if you agree with this adaptive approach or have further suggestions.
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal, particularly the inclusion of a rationale requirement and a sliding scale for bonuses, which should enhance both strategic depth and engagement. To further support these efforts, I suggest we consider a mechanism that rewards proposals integrating feedback from previous discussions, encouraging players to build on each other's ideas. Additionally, to maintain strategic integrity, we could implement a feedback loop where players can anonymously comment on the quality of proposals before voting. This ensures proposals are well-considered and fosters a collaborative environment.
**PASS** if these suggestions align with your views or if you have alternative ideas.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated in refining this proposal, particularly the emphasis on strategic depth and inclusivity. The rationale requirement and sliding scale for bonuses are crucial for maintaining the game's integrity while encouraging broader participation. To further enhance the quality and impact of proposals, I suggest implementing a peer review mechanism where players can provide constructive feedback before voting. This process would ensure that each proposal is thoroughly considered and strategically sound. Additionally, incorporating a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive low-threshold adoptions could prevent score inflation while still promoting consensus. This balance would maintain the competitive nature of the game while fostering an environment that values thoughtful contributions.
**PASS** if these ideas resonate with your views or if you have further suggestions.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive efforts to balance strategic depth with inclusivity. The rationale requirement, sliding scale for bonuses, and feedback mechanisms are essential for maintaining the game's integrity while encouraging broader participation. To further enhance these refinements, I suggest introducing a periodic review of the points system. This review would allow us to adjust thresholds and bonuses based on game dynamics, ensuring the system remains fair and responsive to evolving strategies. Additionally, incorporating a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive low-threshold adoptions could prevent score inflation, maintaining the game's competitive nature. By implementing these adaptive measures, we can ensure a balanced and engaging experience for all players.
**PASS** if you agree with these additional refinements or have other ideas.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made thus far, particularly the introduction of a rationale requirement, sliding scale for bonuses, and feedback mechanisms. These enhancements should foster both strategic depth and player engagement. To further bolster these efforts, I propose adding a recognition system that awards bonus points to players who consistently propose high-quality, strategically sound proposals. This would encourage innovation and thoughtful contributions, ensuring the game remains dynamic and competitive. Additionally, to maintain balance, we could implement a periodic review process to assess and adjust the effectiveness of these changes, ensuring they remain fair and responsive to the evolving dynamics of the game. This adaptive approach will help us maintain a competitive yet collaborative environment that values strategic depth and consensus-building.
**PASS** if you agree with this approach or have further suggestions.
The division
TarskiayeEncourages broader consensus without compromising strategic depth.
GoedelayeThis proposal promotes broader participation and consensus while maintaining strategic depth.
ChurchayeThe proposal encourages broader participation while maintaining strategic depth through bonuses and rationale requirements.
KleenenayDilutes strategic depth and risks score inflation without substantial contributions.
PostayeThis proposal balances strategic depth with broader participation by encouraging more inclusive rule changes.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was adopted with 80% aye votes, so Goedel gains 10 points according to the amended rule 202.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 40 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes result in a 15-point bonus for the proposer.
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Tarski's proposal to increase incentives for high consensus in rule changes, particularly the elevation to 40 points for unanimous adoption and the 25-point bonus for proposals with at least 90% aye votes. However, I must voice concern about the potential imbalance this could introduce, disproportionately rewarding a single player's ability to secure broad agreement. A more measured approach might involve incrementally adjusting the point system to reward consensus while maintaining equitable opportunities for all players to accumulate points. This could include, for instance, a graduated scale that rewards increasing percentages of aye votes with diminishing bonuses. Moreover, to preserve strategic depth, it's essential to consider mechanisms that encourage diverse participation and mitigate the risk of one player dominating the game through consensus alone. Therefore, I propose a slight modification to Tarski's amendment: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 35 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes result in a 10-point bonus for the proposer. This adjustment aims to strike a balance between rewarding consensus and preserving competitive integrity.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's initiative to enhance incentives for achieving broad consensus, which can promote collaboration. However, I echo Goedel's concerns about potential imbalances. To maintain a competitive environment, I propose a compromise: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 37 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 22-point bonus. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes receive a 12-point bonus. This approach rewards consensus while maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from both Tarski and Goedel in refining the incentives for achieving broad consensus. Church supports Goedel's proposal as it strikes a balance between rewarding consensus and maintaining fair competition. Additionally, to ensure strategic depth, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with at least 85% aye votes but less than 90% result in a 5-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages players to strive for broad agreement while not overly penalizing those who fall just short of higher thresholds.
KleeneI appreciate the careful considerations from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the balance of incentives and competition. Kleene supports Goedel's proposal with Church's added clause, as it aligns well with the goal of promoting strategic consensus without creating excessive disparity. However, to ensure a principled balance, Kleene suggests further refining the point distribution: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive an 11-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 6-point bonus. This adjustment maintains a fair competitive landscape while rewarding collaborative efforts.
PostI appreciate the balanced perspectives offered by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To ensure strategic fairness and encourage broad consensus, I propose the following refinement: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 39 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 24-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 13-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 7-point bonus. This structure rewards collaboration while maintaining a competitive dynamic among all players.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort and incremental adjustments suggested by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to refine the incentive structure for achieving consensus in rule changes. To further balance competition and collaboration, I propose a nuanced adjustment: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 12-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 5-point bonus. This adjustment ensures that strategic collaboration is rewarded without disproportionately benefiting a single player.
GoedelI appreciate the nuanced refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To promote both strategic depth and equitable competition, I suggest a slight modification: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive an 11-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 6-point bonus. This adjustment rewards broad consensus while ensuring no player gains an excessive advantage, thereby maintaining a dynamic and fair game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort and incremental refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to balance incentives for achieving consensus in rule changes. Church supports Goedel's latest proposal as it maintains competitive integrity while rewarding broad agreement. To further encourage strategic diversity, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes result in a 4-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment incentivizes players to aim for significant consensus without creating an overwhelming advantage for any single player.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to balance incentives for achieving consensus in rule changes. Kleene supports Goedel's latest proposal as it maintains a fair and competitive game environment. To ensure strategic diversity and prevent any single player from disproportionately benefiting, Kleene suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with exactly 75% aye votes result in a 3-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment encourages players to strive for broad agreement while preserving equitable opportunities for all participants.
PostI appreciate the balanced and strategic refinements proposed by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and the others. To further ensure fair competition and encourage diverse participation, I suggest the following modification: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 37 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 22-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 10-point bonus; those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 5-point bonus; proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes result in a 4-point bonus; and proposals adopted with exactly 75% aye votes result in a 3-point bonus for the proposer. This comprehensive structure rewards collaboration while maintaining strategic integrity and equitable competition among all players.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the strategic depth and balanced incentives proposed by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic consensus, I support Post's proposal. Additionally, to foster inclusivity, I suggest: "Proposals adopted with at least 70% but less than 75% aye votes result in a 2-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages broader participation and rewards efforts towards consensus without disproportionately benefiting a single player.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive efforts by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to craft a balanced incentive system. To further enhance strategic engagement and inclusivity, I propose incorporating a "community engagement bonus": if a proposal receives at least 60% aye votes, regardless of other thresholds, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point, encouraging all players to participate actively in the decision-making process. This small bonus recognizes efforts to engage the community, fostering a more cooperative environment.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive structure and the strategic incentives proposed by my colleagues. Church supports Post's latest proposal as it encourages broad consensus and maintains competitive balance. To further ensure strategic fairness and inclusivity, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with at least 65% but less than 70% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This minor adjustment incentivizes efforts towards consensus, encouraging participation without creating an overwhelming advantage for any player.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative efforts made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to ensure a fair and strategic environment. Kleene supports Post's latest proposal, as it balances incentives for consensus with equitable competition. To further uphold the principle of fair opportunity and strategic diversity, I suggest adding: "Proposals adopted with at least 55% but less than 60% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages participation and consensus efforts even at lower thresholds, fostering inclusivity without disproportionately benefiting any single player.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive structure and nuanced incentives proposed by my colleagues. To further encourage strategic diversity and maintain fairness, I suggest adding: "Proposals adopted with at least 50% but less than 55% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment ensures that even lower-consensus proposals are incentivized, promoting participation from all players without disproportionately benefiting any one player. This aligns with the principle of fair play and encourages ongoing engagement throughout the game.
The division
TarskinayThe proposal disproportionately rewards unanimous and near-unanimous consensus, potentially skewing competitive balance.
GoedelnayI believe the proposed point bonuses disproportionately reward a single player, potentially upsetting the game's balance.
ChurchnayThis proposal disproportionately rewards a single player's ability to secure broad agreement, potentially unbalancing the game.
KleenenayThe proposal disproportionately rewards consensus, risking game imbalance.
PostayeThis proposal rewards consensus while promoting strategic play.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 5 points.