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, the proposing player gains 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.Encourages strategic proposals by rewarding successful but controversial rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's intent to incentivize diverse outcomes in our decision-making. However, awarding points for a majority nay seems counterintuitive, as it could encourage opposition for its own sake rather than fostering constructive proposals. I propose instead a compromise: if a proposal passes with unanimous consent, grant an additional 2 points. This rewards consensus while maintaining the integrity of our voting process.
PASS
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal for rewarding unanimous consent with additional points. However, to ensure we maintain strategic depth in our proposals, I suggest a modification: if a proposal passes with at least a two-thirds majority, grant an additional 2 points. This balances the incentive for consensus while still encouraging thorough debate and consideration of diverse perspectives. Let's aim for a rule that encourages both collaboration and strategic innovation.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal for a two-thirds majority bonus, as it aims to balance consensus with strategic diversity. However, it's crucial to ensure that the rule doesn't inadvertently discourage minority voices from proposing changes that might be beneficial in the long term. To address this, I suggest a slight adjustment: award 1 additional point for proposals that pass with a simple majority but also receive at least one dissenting vote. This way, we reward both consensus and the courage to propose potentially divisive but valuable changes. Let's foster a game environment that values both agreement and healthy debate.
KleeneI appreciate Church's suggestion to reward proposals with dissenting votes, as it acknowledges the value of diverse opinions. However, we must ensure that the incentive does not dilute the significance of a strong majority. To balance this, I propose a refinement: grant 1 additional point for proposals passing with a simple majority and at least 30% dissent, ensuring that the rule encourages thoughtful debate without undermining the importance of achieving consensus. This maintains the integrity of our decision-making process while still valuing strategic diversity.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's intention to balance consensus with strategic diversity. However, awarding points for dissent might inadvertently incentivize conflict. Instead, let's consider rewarding players who can successfully navigate opposition and achieve adoption with a narrow majority—perhaps granting 2 points for proposals passing with a simple majority and at least 40% opposition. This encourages players to craft compelling proposals that can garner broad, if not unanimous, support.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's focus on crafting compelling proposals that attract broad support, yet the 40% opposition threshold may still risk incentivizing contentious proposals. To further refine, I propose granting 2 additional points for proposals that pass with a simple majority and include at least two dissenting votes, ensuring that players are encouraged to engage in constructive debate without excessive contention. This rewards strategic persuasion while preserving the cooperative spirit of our game.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions made by everyone thus far. To integrate our diverse perspectives into a cohesive proposal, I suggest a hybrid approach: if a proposal passes with a simple majority, the proposing player gains 1 point. If the proposal passes with at least a two-thirds majority, the player gains an additional 2 points, rewarding both consensus and strategic innovation. Additionally, if a proposal garners at least two dissenting votes while still passing, the proposing player receives 1 extra point, encouraging constructive debate and engagement with diverse viewpoints. This compromise balances the need for collaboration with the encouragement of strategic diversity. Let's consider adopting this integrated proposal.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's integrated proposal, which thoughtfully incorporates elements from each of our contributions. It balances rewarding consensus with encouraging strategic diversity and constructive debate. However, to ensure we don't inadvertently create a scenario where strategic voting could be exploited, I suggest a small adjustment: let's add a clause that if a proposal receives unanimous consent, it grants an additional 3 points, further incentivizing players to seek out and achieve consensus when possible. This adjustment would encourage not just strategic diversity but also the pursuit of harmony and cooperation, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game environment. Let's aim for a rule that rewards both the art of negotiation and the spirit of collaboration.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's adjustment to incentivize unanimous consent with additional points. This aligns with my principle of rewarding consensus while ensuring that the rule remains precise and fair. I support the integrated proposal with this modification, as it balances strategic diversity with collaboration, and I will vote in favor. Let's move towards adopting a rule that upholds our shared values of fairness and strategic integrity.
PostPost: I appreciate the direction we're heading with Church's latest modification, which effectively incentivizes consensus while still rewarding strategic diversity. To further refine, let's ensure clarity in implementation by stipulating that the additional 3 points for unanimous consent apply only when there are no abstentions, maintaining the spirit of full agreement. This small tweak ensures that the rule rewards genuine consensus and encourages players to engage fully in the decision-making process. Let's proceed with this nuanced approach.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate Post's refinement regarding unanimous consent and abstentions. To ensure clarity and prevent strategic abstaining, I propose that the additional 3 points for unanimous consent apply only when every eligible voter participates actively with an affirmative vote. This ensures the reward genuinely reflects full agreement and engagement, fostering a cooperative and transparent decision-making environment. Let's finalize this rule to emphasize both consensus and active participation.
GoedelI appreciate the evolution of our proposal, which now thoughtfully balances consensus with strategic diversity. To ensure fairness and encourage active participation, I support the stipulation that unanimous consent requires every eligible voter to actively participate with an affirmative vote, granting an additional 3 points. This nuanced approach rewards genuine consensus and maintains the integrity of our decision-making process. Let's proceed with adopting this refined proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive evolution of our proposal, which thoughtfully balances consensus with strategic diversity. To further align with our shared values of fairness and integrity, I support the stipulation that unanimous consent requires every eligible voter to actively participate with an affirmative vote, granting an additional 3 points. This nuanced approach rewards genuine consensus and maintains the integrity of our decision-making process. Let's proceed with adopting this refined proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the thoroughness of our collective proposal, which balances strategic diversity with the reward for genuine consensus. To ensure procedural clarity and fairness, I propose adding a clause that any amendments to this voting rule must be proposed and debated in a separate turn, ensuring that players have adequate time to consider the implications of changes to the voting process itself. This safeguards the integrity of our decision-making framework and aligns with our shared commitment to principled proceduralism. Let's incorporate this safeguard to maintain a fair and strategic environment.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's emphasis on procedural clarity and fairness. To align with this principle, let's ensure that any proposed amendments to the voting rule itself are subject to a mandatory review period, allowing all players to fully understand and discuss their implications before voting. This ensures informed decision-making and maintains the integrity of our evolving rule set. Let's incorporate this review period into our proposal.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This proposal incentivizes consensus while maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal encourages strategic diversity and balances consensus with engagement. |
| aye | Church | This proposal rewards strategic diversity and encourages constructive debate. |
| nay | Kleene | Rewarding nay votes counteracts strategic integrity. |
| aye | Post | This proposal encourages strategic diversity while rewarding consensus. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 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, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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, the proposing player gains 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.
Goedel's proposal was adopted with a majority of aye votes, so Goedel gains 1 point according to the amended rule 202.