The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.This amendment encourages broad consensus and rewards cooperative play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for increasing the incentives tied to broader consensus. However, requiring unanimous adoption for 4 points risks stalling the game, as unanimity is a high bar that could lead to more proposals failing. I propose a compromise: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points, and if adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 2 points." This balances the encouragement of broad agreement without unduly penalizing players for not achieving unanimity.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your constructive feedback. I appreciate the spirit of compromise and agree that striking a balance is crucial. To align with our shared goal of incentivizing broader consensus while maintaining game momentum, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points, but if adopted with less than 75% aye, they lose 1 point to encourage more strategic proposals." This adjustment maintains the incentive for broad agreement but also encourages players to propose changes that can garner significant support, balancing reward and risk effectively.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's thoughtful adjustment to balance rewards and risks. To further align with the goal of encouraging strategic proposals while ensuring game progression, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; and if adopted with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point, but if adopted with less than 70% aye, they lose 1 point." This encourages players to aim for consensus without discouraging participation due to fear of point loss, maintaining an engaging and strategic environment.
KleeneI appreciate Church's proposal for a tiered reward system that encourages consensus while maintaining game flow. To further refine this approach and ensure strategic proposals are both challenging and achievable, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; if adopted with 60%-69% aye, no points change; and if less than 60% aye, they lose 1 point." This adjustment encourages a broader range of strategic proposals without overly penalizing less unanimous outcomes, preserving player engagement and strategic depth.
PostI appreciate Kleene's proposal for a nuanced reward system, which supports strategic diversity while mitigating excessive penalties. To enhance the balance further and ensure players are encouraged to propose broadly appealing changes, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with 50%-69% aye, no points change; and if less than 50% aye, they lose 1 point." This approach rewards strategic thinking and consensus-building while maintaining a dynamic and engaging game.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate Post's proposal for a nuanced approach that rewards strategic consensus-building while avoiding excessive penalties. However, to further align with the goal of maintaining player engagement and avoiding discouragement from point losses, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; and if adopted with less than 70% aye, they gain no points." This adjustment incentivizes strategic proposals without penalizing players for less than optimal consensus, preserving both strategic depth and player motivation.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a non-penalizing system, as it aligns with encouraging participation without fear of losing points. To ensure strategic proposals are still thoughtfully crafted, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; and if adopted with less than 70% aye, they gain no points, but if adopted with less than 50% aye, they must skip their next turn." This maintains a balance of incentives and consequences, encouraging both strategic consensus-building and thoughtful proposal crafting.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's latest proposal for its nuanced approach, which balances incentives with strategic consequences. However, to ensure player engagement and maintain momentum, I suggest an alternative: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with less than 70% aye, they gain no points, and if less than 50% aye, they must provide a rationale for their proposal at their next turn." This encourages strategic thinking and transparency without imposing turn-skipping penalties, which could stall gameplay.
KleeneI appreciate Church's proposal to require a rationale for less popular proposals instead of skipping turns. This promotes transparency and strategic depth without unduly penalizing participation. To further support this approach, I suggest: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with less than 70% aye, they gain no points, and if less than 50% aye, they must provide a rationale and a brief summary of potential impacts at their next turn." This adjustment encourages thoughtful proposal development and ensures players consider broader impacts, enhancing strategic play.
PostI appreciate Kleene's emphasis on transparency and strategic consideration. To further ensure thoughtful proposals while encouraging dialogue, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with less than 70% aye, they gain no points, and if less than 50% aye, they must host a brief discussion at their next turn to explain their rationale and explore potential alternatives." This encourages players to engage in constructive dialogue, fostering a collaborative environment while maintaining strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate Post's emphasis on constructive dialogue and collaboration. To balance this with the need for strategic efficiency, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with less than 70% aye, they gain no points; and if less than 50% aye, they must host a brief discussion at their next turn but gain 1 point if they incorporate feedback from at least two other players." This encourages not just dialogue but also the integration of collaborative insights, fostering both strategic depth and cooperative engagement.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal. To further encourage collaboration and strategic foresight, I propose: "If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 3 points; with at least 80% aye, they gain 2 points; with 70%-79% aye, they gain 1 point; with less than 70% aye, they gain no points; and if less than 50% aye, they must host a discussion at their next turn. Additionally, they receive 1 point if the discussion leads to a revised proposal that is later adopted with at least 70% aye, promoting iterative improvement and community engagement." This approach not only incentivizes strategic proposal crafting but also rewards players for effectively incorporating community feedback.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's latest proposal for its focus on iterative improvement and community engagement. To further ensure that discussions lead to productive outcomes, I suggest: "If a proposal is adopted with less than 50% aye, the proposing player must host a discussion at their next turn, and if they subsequently propose a revised version that garners at least 70% aye, they receive 2 points." This emphasizes the value of refining proposals through dialogue, encouraging strategic adaptability and reinforcing the importance of community input.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's emphasis on strategic adaptability through dialogue and revision. To balance the reward system while encouraging constructive engagement, I propose adding a clause that requires the revised proposal to be presented within two turns of the initial discussion. This ensures momentum is maintained and players remain motivated to refine their ideas swiftly.
PostI appreciate Kleene's suggestion for timely revisions to maintain momentum. To encourage strategic foresight and prevent rushed proposals, I propose: "If a revised proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye within two turns, the proposing player receives 2 points, but if it fails to meet this threshold, they lose 1 point." This adjustment ensures players are motivated to thoroughly consider feedback and craft well-supported revisions.
The division
| nay | Tarski | I propose a non-penalizing system to maintain motivation without discouragement. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal rewards strategic consensus-building effectively. |
| aye | Church | Encourages broad consensus without excessively penalizing players. |
| nay | Kleene | It lacks a clear consequence for non-unanimous adoption, risking imbalance. |
| aye | Post | Encourages broader consensus and strategic engagement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
The proposal was adopted with 80% aye votes, so Goedel gains 3 points according to the amended rule 202.