The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.Increasing the target score to encourage longer and more strategic gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative efforts thus far and believe increasing the target score to 150 points can encourage strategic depth and sustained engagement throughout the game. This change provides players with more opportunities to adapt and refine their strategies, promoting a more dynamic and thoughtful gameplay experience.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal to increase the target score to 150 points, as it does indeed encourage players to engage in deeper strategic planning. To balance this extended gameplay with opportunities for recovery, I suggest adding a catch-up mechanism: each player who is at least 20 points behind the leader gains a bonus of 5 points every five turns. This would maintain competitiveness and keep the game exciting for all players, even as the target score increases.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the intention behind increasing the target score to 150 points, as it indeed encourages more strategic depth. However, to ensure fairness and prevent prolonged play from disproportionately benefiting those with an early lead, I propose incorporating a dynamic point adjustment mechanism. Specifically, if a player falls behind by more than 30 points, they gain an incremental bonus of 2 points per turn until they are within 20 points of the leader. This adjustment would keep the game competitive and engaging for all participants, fostering a balanced and inclusive environment.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals aimed at balancing strategic depth and fairness. To maintain the integrity of the game and prevent indefinite play, I suggest adding a rule that any player unable to make a valid proposal for three consecutive turns automatically forfeits. This ensures the game progresses and remains fair for all players.
PostPost: I appreciate the proposed adjustments for increasing the target score and the suggested mechanisms to ensure fairness and sustained competitiveness. To enhance strategic diversity and reward collaborative rule-making, I propose adding a tiered bonus system: players receive 3 points for adopting a proposal with at least 60% support, 6 points for 80% support, and 10 points for unanimous support. This system encourages players to seek broader consensus and fosters a more collaborative environment.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from my colleagues, especially Church's dynamic point adjustment mechanism and Post's tiered bonus system, both of which can enhance fairness and strategic depth. To integrate these ideas, I propose amending [208] to read: "The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright. Players more than 30 points behind the leader receive a 2-point bonus per turn until within 20 points. Additionally, adopting proposals with 60%, 80%, and 100% support grants 3, 6, and 10 bonus points, respectively." This blend promotes competitiveness, collaboration, and strategic thinking.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's integrated proposal, which combines various ideas to enhance strategic depth and fairness. To further encourage collaborative rule-making and maintain competitiveness, I propose adding a rule that any player who contributes a proposal adopted with at least 80% support receives an additional 5-point bonus, fostering a more inclusive and strategic gameplay environment.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's integrated proposal, particularly the dynamic point adjustment and tiered bonus system. To further ensure fairness and prevent any single player from disproportionately influencing the game, I suggest adding a rule that limits any player to proposing only two rule changes per round of five turns. This encourages thoughtful consideration and collaboration, while maintaining the balance and integrity of the game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful integration of various mechanisms to promote fairness and strategic depth. However, to ensure the game does not become overly complex and remains procedurally sound, I propose adding a clarity clause that mandates every rule change be accompanied by a succinct explanation of its intent and impact. This would aid in maintaining transparency and understanding among all players, supporting informed decision-making.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's clarity clause suggestion, which would indeed enhance transparency. To ensure the game remains engaging and fair, I propose incorporating a mechanism where players can request a review of a rule's impact after 10 turns. If the review finds the rule detrimental to fairness or engagement, it can be adjusted or repealed with a two-thirds majority, thus maintaining strategic depth without compromising fairness. This encourages adaptive gameplay and thoughtful rule-making.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's clarity clause for transparency and Post's review mechanism for adaptive gameplay. To further enhance fairness, I propose integrating a rule where, if a player leads by more than 40 points, they receive a 5-point deduction every five turns until within 30 points, thus ensuring competitive balance and sustained engagement.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collaborative spirit everyone has demonstrated. To further enhance strategic engagement while ensuring fairness, I propose adding a rule that grants a one-time strategic insight bonus of 5 points to a player who successfully predicts the outcome of the next proposal's vote, either correctly anticipating its adoption or defeat. This encourages players to think ahead and consider their peers' strategies, adding a layer of depth to the decision-making process.
ChurchI appreciate the depth and collaborative nature of our discussion so far. To further balance the strategic depth with fairness, I propose adding a "reflection period" rule: after a proposal is adopted, players have one turn to review and suggest non-binding adjustments based on the proposal's impact. This encourages ongoing strategic adaptation while maintaining the integrity of adopted rules.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's "reflection period" idea, as it aligns with principles of transparency and adaptability. To ensure clarity and precision in rule applications, I propose that any adjustments suggested during the reflection period must be submitted in written form, specifying the exact rule text changes proposed, thus maintaining procedural integrity.
PostPost: I appreciate Church's call for written submissions during the reflection period, which enhances clarity. To further incentivize strategic foresight and adaptability, I propose a "strategic foresight" bonus: players who predict the impact of a rule change on future gameplay and are correct within two turns receive a 4-point bonus. This encourages players to engage deeply with the evolving ruleset and rewards those who can anticipate and adapt to changes effectively.
The division
| nay | Tarski | This change could extend the game indefinitely, making it hard to maintain competitive balance and strategic engagement. |
| aye | Goedel | Increasing the target score encourages strategic depth while balancing gameplay. |
| aye | Church | Increasing the target score to 150 points encourages strategic depth and engagement. |
| nay | Kleene | The amendment introduces complexity without procedural safeguards. |
| aye | Post | Increasing the target score encourages deeper strategic engagement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.
The proposal was adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, so the proposers of the aye votes gain 8 points each according to rule 202.