Turn 14 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Encourages both unanimous consensus and strategic majority support.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to increase point incentives for successful rule changes. However, I am concerned that such a significant increase in points might excessively skew the game's balance and lead to an overemphasis on unanimous decisions, potentially stifling the strategic diversity that makes Nomic engaging. As a compromise, I propose a more moderate increase: if a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 10 points, and with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 6 points. This adjustment maintains a strong incentive for collaboration while preserving strategic variety and ensuring that players remain motivated to engage in thoughtful debate and negotiation. Tarski proposes to amend [202] to read: "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 10 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 6 points."

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's constructive approach to finding a balanced solution that still offers significant incentives for collaboration without compromising the strategic diversity of the game. Tarski's proposed amendment seems to address my original intent of encouraging more cooperative play, while also heeding the concern about game balance. To further ensure the proposal's acceptance and effectiveness, I suggest we integrate a clause that encourages ongoing discussion and refinement, such as allowing a limited number of amendments to a proposal during the debate phase. This way, we can foster both strategic depth and consensus-building. Let's move forward with Tarski's proposal with this additional consideration for promoting dynamic engagement.

ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's efforts to balance incentives for collaboration and game strategy. The proposed point increases are a step in the right direction, fostering a spirit of cooperation. To further enhance strategic play, I suggest we also introduce a small bonus for players who propose changes that receive broad support but aren't unanimous, such as gaining an additional 3 points if a proposal is adopted with more than 50% but less than 75% of the votes as aye. This would reward players for crafting proposals that gain substantial but not unanimous backing, encouraging diverse strategic approaches. Let's integrate this idea with Tarski's proposal.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the efforts of Tarski and Church to incentivize both collaboration and strategic diversity. To further balance the game and prevent any single strategy from dominating, I propose adding a clause that reduces the points gained for unanimous adoption if the same player achieves it consecutively without any intervening losses. This encourages players to maintain a strategic variety rather than relying on one approach. Let's integrate this with Tarski's proposal.

PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, all aimed at fostering a balanced and engaging game. Goedel's initial proposal, while ambitious, sets the stage for these productive refinements. To build on this collaborative spirit, I suggest we introduce a mechanism that encourages revisiting and revising proposals. Specifically, if a proposal fails but receives more than 50% aye votes, the proposing player should be able to propose a revised version on their next turn without penalty, incentivizing ongoing strategic refinement and dialogue. Let's integrate this idea to enhance the dynamic nature of Nomic.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's suggestion for a revision mechanism, which adds a layer of strategic depth by encouraging players to refine their proposals. However, to maintain balance, I suggest we cap the number of revisions a proposal can undergo at two. This way, we avoid endless cycles of amendments while still promoting thoughtful iteration. Let's integrate this idea with the current proposal to encourage dynamic yet bounded strategic engagement.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly Post's suggestion for a revision mechanism, which aligns well with my vision of dynamic engagement. To balance this with the need to maintain strategic diversity, I propose we also include a clause that slightly reduces the points gained for unanimous decisions if a player has achieved multiple consecutive unanimous adoptions. This adjustment ensures that while collaboration is incentivized, players remain encouraged to diversify their strategies. Let's integrate this with Tarski's proposal to foster both cooperation and strategic variety.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post. To ensure the game remains engaging and fair, I propose we add a clause to limit the point bonus for unanimous adoptions to once per round for each player. This will encourage strategic diversity and prevent dominance by any single player. Let's integrate this with the current proposal to maintain a balanced and dynamic game environment.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's addition to limit point bonuses for consecutive unanimous decisions, which helps maintain game balance and strategic variety. To further ensure fairness, I propose we introduce a clause that requires a minimum number of different players proposing successful rule changes per round. This could be set at two players, ensuring that the game encourages a broader participation in rule-making. Let's integrate this with the current proposal to promote inclusive and dynamic gameplay.

PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's proposal to encourage broader participation, which aligns with the spirit of inclusive rule-making in Nomic. To further enhance this dynamic, I suggest we introduce a small point bonus for players whose proposals are adopted after being initially defeated and revised, incentivizing persistence and innovation. This would reward players for refining their ideas and engaging in productive dialogue, even after initial setbacks. Let's integrate this with the current proposal to foster a more collaborative and resilient strategic environment.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the diverse contributions from all players, which have significantly refined this proposal. To further enhance fairness and prevent potential dominance by any single player or strategy, I propose we add a clause that introduces a diminishing returns mechanism for point bonuses from unanimous adoptions. Specifically, if a player receives a unanimous adoption bonus more than once in a single round, the points gained from each subsequent unanimous adoption in that round should decrease by a set percentage. This adjustment encourages strategic diversity and prevents any single strategy from becoming overly dominant. Let's integrate this idea into the current proposal to promote a balanced and engaging game environment.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative spirit shown by all players. The introduction of a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive unanimous adoptions by Tarski is a thoughtful addition that further ensures strategic diversity and fairness. To complement this, I propose a minor adjustment to Post's revision mechanism: let's allow a third revision if the proposal gains more than 75% approval on its second attempt, encouraging players to persist in refining their ideas while maintaining balance. This minor tweak can help foster innovation and resilience in strategic gameplay. Let's integrate this into our proposal.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by my fellow players, especially Tarski's diminishing returns mechanism and Goedel's revision allowance. To further encourage strategic diversity and fair play, I suggest we add a clause that slightly decreases the points for unanimous adoptions if the proposing player has already adopted a rule change during the same round. This encourages players to diversify their strategies rather than relying on a single approach. Let's integrate this into our proposal to maintain a balanced and dynamic game environment.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the depth and balance achieved in this refined proposal. To further ensure fairness and prevent potential exploitation of the point system, I propose we introduce a clause that limits the total number of unanimous adoption bonuses a player can receive to three per game. This cap would encourage strategic diversity and prevent any single player from becoming overly dominant through repeated unanimous decisions. Let's integrate this into our proposal to promote a fair and engaging game environment.

PostPost: I appreciate the balanced approach and thoughtful contributions from all players, especially Kleene's cap on unanimous adoption bonuses. To further ensure strategic diversity and encourage players to explore different avenues for rule changes, I propose we introduce a small bonus for players whose proposals are adopted after being revised once, regardless of the percentage of votes. This would incentivize players to refine their ideas and adapt to feedback, promoting a dynamic and responsive game environment. Let's integrate this with the current proposal to foster a spirit of innovation and adaptability.

The division

nay	Tarski	This proposal risks excessive point inflation, undermining strategic diversity.
aye	Goedel	I appreciate the balanced approach to incentivizing collaboration while ensuring strategic diversity.
aye	Church	This proposal balances incentives for collaboration and strategic diversity, promoting a dynamic game environment.
nay	Kleene	It lacks a cap on unanimous adoption bonuses.
aye	Post	Promotes collaboration and strategic diversity.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §317 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 8 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 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 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 points.

The proposal was adopted with 3 ayes out of 5, which is a simple majority but not unanimous, so Goedel gains 8 points according to the amended rule 202.