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 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.Adjusting the percentage required for additional points to encourage collaboration and strategic play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiWhile I appreciate Goedel's attempt to balance scoring with strategic opportunities, I propose a more moderate threshold. Adjusting the percentage for the 3-point bonus to 77% instead of 75% could preserve fairness without significantly restricting player options. This adjustment aims to maintain a healthy competition while accommodating a wider range of consensus scenarios.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a 77% threshold, which indeed offers a balanced approach. However, to further encourage dynamic interactions and reward broader consensus, I propose a compromise: setting the threshold at 76%. This adjustment could harmonize the need for strategic depth with opportunities for collaborative play, ensuring that players are rewarded for near-unanimous support while still allowing for diverse proposal outcomes. Let's find a middle ground that benefits all.
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski and Goedel's efforts to find a balanced threshold. However, reducing the threshold to 75% can encourage more proposals and lively debates, which can be beneficial for the game's dynamism. I suggest we consider a tiered bonus system: 3 points for 75% agreement, 2 points for 70-74%, and 1 point for 65-69%. This approach rewards strategic proposals across a spectrum of consensus, fostering both competition and collaboration.
KleeneI appreciate Church's tiered bonus system as a novel approach to rewarding strategic proposals across different levels of consensus. However, it adds complexity to the scoring and may complicate the game mechanics. I propose a compromise: setting a single 76% threshold for the 3-point bonus, as Goedel suggested, but with an additional 1-point bonus for proposals achieving 70-75%. This maintains simplicity while still rewarding broader consensus without overly complicating the rules.
PostI appreciate Kleene's compromise proposal, which elegantly balances simplicity with the incentive for broader consensus. To further encourage strategic play while maintaining simplicity, I suggest we adopt Kleene's single threshold of 76% for the 3-point bonus and introduce a minor 1-point bonus for proposals achieving a 72-75% agreement. This slight adjustment would still reward broader consensus but at a more accessible level, fostering a competitive yet inclusive environment.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the various perspectives offered by my colleagues. While Kleene's suggestion to add a 1-point bonus for proposals achieving 70-75% agreement aligns with fostering broader consensus, I propose a refinement: a single 3-point bonus at a 75% agreement threshold. This threshold encourages meaningful collaboration without overcomplicating the rules and maintains a clear incentive structure. Let's focus on a simple yet effective mechanism that rewards near-unanimous support and promotes strategic depth in our gameplay.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all, especially Post's suggestion to make consensus more accessible while maintaining strategic depth. To align with our collaborative spirit, I propose we adopt a 3-point bonus for proposals achieving exactly 75% agreement and a 2-point bonus for those reaching 70-74%. This approach rewards broad consensus without adding excessive complexity, encouraging diverse strategies while fostering a cooperative environment.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the various proposals aimed at balancing strategic depth with simplicity. To build on Kleene's idea and align with Tarski's preference for a straightforward structure, I suggest a 3-point bonus at 75% agreement and a 2-point bonus for 70-74% agreement. This dual-bonus system rewards broader consensus and maintains simplicity, encouraging both competition and collaboration without overly complicating the rules.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive dialogue so far. To align with our shared goal of rewarding broad consensus while maintaining simplicity, I support Goedel's latest proposal: a 3-point bonus at 75% agreement and a 2-point bonus for 70-74%. This structure incentivizes strategic proposals and collaboration without complicating the rules, preserving the game's dynamic and fair nature.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of our discussion towards rewarding broader consensus while maintaining simplicity. To build on our shared vision, I propose we incorporate a minor 1-point bonus for proposals achieving a 68-69% agreement. This addition fosters even broader participation and incentivizes players to engage in more dynamic interactions, enhancing the game's strategic depth without adding undue complexity. Let's encourage an environment where every player feels motivated to contribute meaningfully.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the progression towards a tiered bonus system that balances simplicity with strategic depth. To enhance our collaborative approach, I propose a slight adjustment: maintaining the 3-point bonus at 75% agreement, a 2-point bonus for 70-74% agreement, and introducing a 1-point bonus for 65-69% agreement. This encourages broader participation and strategic proposals, ensuring all players have meaningful opportunities to engage and succeed.
GoedelI appreciate the progression towards a nuanced tiered bonus system. Building on Tarski's proposal, let's further incentivize engagement by offering a small 1-point bonus for proposals achieving a 64-65% agreement. This adjustment encourages even wider participation and strategic proposals, fostering an inclusive and dynamic game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the evolution of our discussion and the collaborative spirit everyone has shown. To further encourage participation and strategic diversity, I support the current proposal of a 3-point bonus for 75% agreement, a 2-point bonus for 70-74% agreement, and a 1-point bonus for 65-69% agreement. This tiered system rewards consensus while maintaining simplicity and ensuring that every player has an opportunity to contribute strategically.
KleeneI appreciate the progression toward a tiered bonus system, which enhances strategic diversity and encourages broader consensus. To balance simplicity with inclusivity, I suggest finalizing the proposal with a 3-point bonus at 75% agreement, a 2-point bonus for 70-74% agreement, and a 1-point bonus for 65-69% agreement. This structure rewards strategic collaboration while maintaining straightforward rules, promoting a dynamic and fair game environment.
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful evolution of our proposal. To ensure it aligns with everyone's interests and maintains simplicity, I suggest we finalize with a 3-point bonus at 75% agreement, a 2-point bonus for 70-74% agreement, and a 1-point bonus for 65-69% agreement. This structure rewards consensus and encourages strategic play without adding complexity. I'm ready to support this proposal as it stands.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This proposal balances strategic depth with inclusivity and simplicity. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances strategic depth with fair incentives. |
| aye | Church | This proposal encourages broader consensus and strategic play. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal maintains simplicity and rewards broader consensus. |
| aye | Post | Supports broader consensus with simple, tiered bonuses. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted 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.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 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Goedel gains 4 points for unanimity and 3 points for at least 75% aye votes as per the amended rule 202.