The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 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.This amendment introduces a time constraint on debate to promote efficiency while providing a higher reward for consensus, aligning with strategic play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiThank you, Tarski, for your proposal. I appreciate the intent to streamline the debate process and increase the reward for unanimous adoptions. However, the three-minute debate limit might rush thoughtful deliberation, especially for complex proposals. Perhaps we could consider extending the debate period slightly while still aiming to keep discussions concise. Additionally, the increase from 12 to 15 points for unanimous adoptions is a significant jump. It could disproportionately favor early unanimous adoptions, potentially skewing the game balance. A more moderate increase might preserve the incentive without creating an imbalance. I am open to further discussing these aspects to refine the proposal.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your thoughtful feedback. I agree that a three-minute limit might be too restrictive for meaningful debate, and I suggest extending it to five minutes to ensure we have ample time for discussion without dragging on. Regarding the point increase, I propose a compromise of 13 points for unanimous adoptions. This adjustment retains the incentive while minimizing potential game imbalance. Let's work together to refine these aspects and reach a consensus that benefits everyone.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's willingness to refine the proposal, and I support the extension of the debate period to five minutes to ensure thorough discussion. However, I suggest a further adjustment to the point reward for unanimous adoptions. Instead of 13 points, let's set it at 14 points. This strikes a balance between encouraging strategic collaboration and maintaining a fair competitive environment. I believe this compromise will foster a more engaging and balanced game.
KleeneI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's suggestions, as well as Church's proposal for 14 points for unanimous adoptions. To ensure fairness, I propose we also adjust the additional 10 points for 75% adoption with a score below 50 to 8 points, to balance the increased reward for unanimity and maintain strategic depth. Let's aim for a consensus on this refined proposal.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, and I find the compromise of 14 points for unanimous adoptions reasonable. To further balance the game, I suggest we implement a progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions: 14 points for the first unanimous adoption, 12 for the second, 10 for the third, and so on. This ensures that while early strategic collaboration is rewarded, the incentive doesn't disproportionately favor any player for subsequent unanimous adoptions. Let's consider this adjustment to maintain competitive fairness throughout the game.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiThank you to all for the constructive discussion. I agree with Kleene's suggestion to adjust the additional 10 points to 8 for proposals adopted with at least 75% of votes as aye and the player's score below 50, which helps maintain competitive balance. I also support Post's idea of a progressive point reduction for unanimous adoptions. Let's adopt a system where the first unanimous adoption awards 14 points, the second 12 points, the third 10 points, and so on, to ensure rewards remain fair throughout the game.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your comprehensive revision. I agree with the progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions; it ensures fair play throughout the game. Additionally, I propose that the debate period not only be capped at five minutes but also include a mandatory two-minute preparation period before the debate starts. This ensures players have adequate time to formulate their thoughts and contributes to more meaningful discussions.
ChurchChurch: I support Goedel's addition of a two-minute preparation period before the debate. This ensures players are well-prepared, enhancing the quality of discussion. The progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions is a fair approach that I also endorse. Let's finalize these adjustments to maintain an engaging and balanced game.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, and I find the progressive point reduction system and the mandatory preparation period to be well-reasoned and balanced. However, I am concerned about the potential complexity introduced by these changes. To ensure clarity and maintain focus on the game's strategic elements, I suggest we keep the debate period at five minutes without a mandatory preparation period, while adopting the progressive point reduction system. This approach simplifies the rules while still rewarding strategic collaboration effectively.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's concerns about complexity and agree that keeping the debate period at five minutes is a good compromise. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, let's introduce a brief one-minute warning before the debate ends. This gives players a chance to wrap up their thoughts and maintain the strategic integrity of the game.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's suggestion of a one-minute warning before the end of the debate. This balances clarity with strategic depth without adding unnecessary complexity. Let's adopt this refined proposal with the five-minute debate period and the progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions, as it fosters both fair competition and engaging play. PASS.
GoedelThank you, everyone, for the productive discussion. I support the proposal with the five-minute debate period and the one-minute warning. The progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions is a fair and strategic enhancement. To further encourage thoughtful proposals, I suggest adding a clause that requires each proposal to be accompanied by a brief rationale, up to two sentences, to facilitate informed debate and decision-making. Let's finalize these adjustments to maintain a balanced and engaging game. PASS
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the proposal, especially the inclusion of a one-minute warning and the progressive point reduction system, which balance fairness and strategy effectively. To further enhance clarity and informed decision-making, I support Goedel's suggestion to require each proposal to include a brief rationale. This will ensure that all players understand the intent behind changes, promoting transparent and thoughtful gameplay. Let's proceed with these adjustments to maintain an engaging and balanced game. PASS
KleeneI appreciate the consensus-building approach demonstrated by my colleagues. Kleene's concerns about complexity are valid, and I agree with the proposal's current state: a five-minute debate period with a one-minute warning and a progressive point reduction system for unanimous adoptions. To ensure that this system remains fair and balanced, I suggest adding a provision that limits the number of unanimous adoptions a player can benefit from to three, after which the points for unanimity revert to the standard 12 points. This ensures that while strategic collaboration is encouraged, the game remains competitive and prevents any single player from gaining an excessive advantage through repeated unanimous adoptions. Let's incorporate this adjustment to maintain the game's integrity and competitive balance. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion to limit the number of unanimous adoptions a player can benefit from. To balance this further, I propose that after three unanimous adoptions, the player must wait for three additional turns before they can earn points from another unanimous adoption. This ensures that strategic collaboration remains a viable but not overly dominant strategy, promoting sustained competitive play. Let's integrate this into the proposal. PASS
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposal does not include the refined adjustments such as the five-minute debate period, one-minute warning, progressive point reduction system, or rationale requirement, which are critical for strategic balance. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal fosters fair competition and strategic collaboration with balanced rewards. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances strategic collaboration with competitive fairness. |
| nay | Kleene | The proposal introduces a three-minute limit which might rush complex debates. |
| aye | Post | The proposal streamlines debate and rewards strategic collaboration effectively. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §322 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 and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 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.
Tarski's proposal was adopted with a majority, awarding 15 points as per the amended rule 202.