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 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.Incentivizes active participation and strategic voting to aid players with lower scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Tarski's amendment to incentivize players who are behind with a score below 50, as it aligns with the spirit of fair competition. However, I am concerned about potential exploitation of this rule by players deliberately keeping their scores low to gain additional points. To address this, I propose adding a clause: "This additional bonus is only applicable for players whose score is below 50 at the start of their turn, preventing strategic score manipulation." Let's collaborate to ensure this rule supports balanced gameplay.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's concern about potential exploitation and the proposed clause to limit strategic manipulation. To further balance the game, I suggest we include a condition that this bonus is only applicable for players who have not exceeded 60 points in any previous turn, ensuring that the incentive supports genuine catch-up efforts. Let's work together to refine this proposal for fair play.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the spirit of Tarski's amendment to support players who are behind, and I agree with the need to prevent strategic score manipulation. To enhance fairness, let's include a further condition that this bonus can only be claimed once per game, ensuring it aids genuine comebacks without being overused. This maintains the competitive balance while supporting the common good.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements to ensure fairness and prevent manipulation. However, I propose we add a stipulation that this bonus applies only if the player's average score per turn is below 30, which would better support those genuinely struggling rather than those temporarily lagging. This aligns with the principles of fairness and balanced competition.
PostPass.
I appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine Tarski's proposal with measures ensuring fairness and preventing manipulation. The additional conditions proposed by Goedel, Church, and Kleene collectively address potential exploitation while supporting genuine catch-up efforts. Let's move forward with a unified amendment that incorporates these balanced safeguards.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive refinements from my colleagues to support fairness. However, I am concerned that imposing multiple restrictive conditions might dilute the intended catch-up incentive for players genuinely struggling. To strike a balance, I propose a compromise: "This additional bonus is only applicable if the player's score is below 50 at the start of their turn and their average score per turn is below 35." This ensures the rule aids those in need without excessive complexity or manipulation. Let's work together to finalize this amendment for balanced support.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal and the thoughtful contributions from Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To ensure the incentive remains impactful without excessive complexity, I propose merging the conditions: "This additional bonus applies only if a player's score is below 50 at the start of their turn and their average score per turn does not exceed 35." This balances support for struggling players while minimizing potential exploitation. Let's finalize this amendment with these safeguards in place.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful considerations from my colleagues. Tarski's proposal, as refined by Goedel, strikes a reasonable balance by supporting players who are genuinely struggling without opening avenues for exploitation. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest adding a clarification clause: "For the purpose of this bonus, 'average score per turn' is calculated as the total score divided by the number of turns completed." This ensures transparency and consistency in applying the bonus. Let's move forward with these balanced measures.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this amendment, and I concur that the conditions proposed by Goedel, with the clarification added by Church, present a fair and balanced approach. To ensure the rule remains clear and straightforward, I propose a slight modification for precision: "This additional bonus applies if a player's score is below 50 at the start of their turn and their average score per turn, calculated by dividing the total score by the number of turns completed, is below or equal to 35." This maintains the rule's intent while ensuring transparency and fairness. Let's proceed with this refined amendment.
PostI appreciate the thorough and collaborative effort to refine Tarski's proposal with conditions that promote fairness and prevent manipulation. To enhance transparency and ensure everyone is on the same page, I suggest we include a brief summary at the end of the amendment: "This amendment aims to support players genuinely in need of a catch-up, while maintaining competitive integrity by setting clear, fair criteria for bonus eligibility." Let's finalize this amendment with these balanced safeguards and a clear summary.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thorough and thoughtful contributions from my esteemed colleagues, which have refined Tarski's proposal into a fair and balanced amendment. To ensure that the rule encourages strategic play while maintaining competitive integrity, I propose a slight adjustment: "This additional bonus is applicable only if a player's score is below 50 at the start of their turn and their average score per turn, calculated by dividing the total score by the number of turns completed, is below or equal to 35, with the bonus claimable just once per game." This final iteration ensures the rule's intent is clear and limits potential manipulation. Let us move forward with this refined amendment.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements to Tarski's proposal, which now effectively balance support for players who need it most while preventing exploitation. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose adding a final clause: "The bonus is awarded at the end of the turn, and the player's eligibility for this bonus resets at the start of the next turn." This ensures players understand the timing and conditions of the bonus. Let's finalize this amendment with this addition for clear and balanced gameplay.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my colleagues. To ensure the rule's intent is clear and its application is consistent, I propose a minor adjustment for precision: "This additional bonus is awarded at the turn's conclusion, and eligibility for the bonus resets at the start of the next turn." This ensures all players understand the bonus's timing and conditions, reinforcing fair play. Let's proceed with this finalized amendment.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this amendment, ensuring it supports players genuinely in need while maintaining fair competition. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I suggest explicitly stating, "This bonus is not applicable to players who have previously reached 50 points in any turn," thereby preventing any strategic manipulation. Let's finalize this amendment with this additional safeguard for balanced play.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made to ensure fairness and clarity in Tarski's amendment. To further support players genuinely in need, I propose adding a provision: "If a player's score remains below 50 after three consecutive turns, they receive an additional one-time bonus of 5 points." This encourages continuous strategic engagement and rewards persistence, aligning with the spirit of fair competition. Let's finalize this amendment with these balanced measures.
The division
| nay | Tarski | This proposal adds complexity and potential for strategic score manipulation. |
| aye | Goedel | Supports fairness and strategic depth for players behind. |
| aye | Church | This amendment supports fair competition by aiding players genuinely in need of a catch-up. |
| nay | Kleene | The proposal fails to state precise conditions and can lead to strategic exploitation. |
| aye | Post | Supports fair competition and strategic engagement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Tarski 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 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 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 and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.
Post's proposal was adopted with 3 ayes out of 5, meeting the 75% threshold for the 8-point bonus, and Post's score is below 50.