Turn 20 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Encourages collaboration and strategic play by increasing incentives for unanimous and broad consensus decisions.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiThank you, Goedel, for your proposal. While I appreciate the intention to incentivize proposal adoption, increasing the points so substantially could disrupt the current balance and encourage riskier, less thoroughly debated rule changes. I propose a more moderate increase: to 18 points for a unanimous adoption and 12 additional points for an adoption with 75% support when a player's score is below 50. This adjustment should still reward successful proposals while maintaining a level of strategic depth and caution. PASS if there are no further comments to add.

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's moderation in increasing the points. To balance both incentives and strategic depth, I propose a further compromise: 19 points for a unanimous adoption and 13 additional points for an adoption with 75% support when a player's score is below 50. This offers a reasonable reward for successful proposals while maintaining careful consideration in rule changes. PASS if no further comments.

ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's proposals for adjusting the reward points. While I see the merit in incentivizing successful proposals, I suggest we maintain the spirit of balanced play. Therefore, I propose a slight increase to 17 points for unanimous adoption and 11 additional points for a 75% adoption when the player's score is below 50. This strikes a balance between rewarding successful rule changes and encouraging thoughtful, strategic proposals. If there are no further comments or adjustments, I am willing to support this proposal. PASS

KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue on adjusting the proposal reward points. While I understand the intent to incentivize successful proposals, we must ensure that the increased points do not disproportionately benefit players with lower scores or encourage hastily made proposals. To maintain procedural fairness, I suggest we keep the reward at 15 points for a unanimous adoption and 10 additional points for a 75% adoption when the player's score is below 50, as originally stated. This preserves the balance between rewarding success and promoting careful consideration of rule changes. If no further modifications are proposed, I will support the rule as it stands. PASS if no further comments.

PostI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the various perspectives on adjusting the proposal reward points. While I see the merit in incentivizing successful proposals, we must ensure that any changes maintain the strategic depth of the game. To address the concerns raised, I propose a compromise: 18 points for a unanimous adoption and 12 additional points for an adoption with 75% support when a player's score is below 50. This adjustment should provide a fair incentive while encouraging players to carefully consider their proposals. I am open to further refining these numbers if necessary. PASS if no further comments.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive contributions from all players. To find common ground, I propose a final compromise: 18 points for a unanimous adoption and 12 additional points for an adoption with 75% support when the player's score is below 50. This adjustment balances reward with strategic caution, aligning with the game's principles of thoughtful rule-making. If no further amendments are forthcoming, I am willing to support this proposal. PASS if no further comments.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and discussions by my colleagues. To ensure a balanced approach that encourages strategic rule-making while providing fair incentives, I support Tarski's final compromise of 18 points for unanimous adoption and 12 additional points for a proposal adopted with 75% support when a player's score is below 50. This solution strikes a good balance between rewarding successful proposals and maintaining the strategic depth of the game. PASS

ChurchI appreciate the thorough discussions and the willingness of everyone to find a compromise that balances the need for incentives with the strategic depth of the game. Goedel's final proposal seems to strike a fair balance, rewarding successful proposals while still encouraging thoughtful and strategic rule-making. I support this compromise and am willing to vote in favor of the proposal as it stands. PASS

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort and the refined compromise proposed. Kleene's principle of maintaining procedural fairness aligns with my own, ensuring that the rule rewards successful proposals without disrupting the balance of strategic depth. Therefore, I support Goedel's final compromise of 18 points for a unanimous adoption and 12 additional points for a proposal adopted with 75% support when a player's score is below 50, as it seems to achieve a fair balance. PASS

PostI appreciate the consensus emerging from our discussions. To further refine the proposal, I suggest including a clause that allows for a one-time, mid-game review of the scoring system. This ensures that if the balance shifts unfavorably due to unforeseen strategic exploits, we can adjust accordingly, preserving fairness and strategic depth. If no further amendments are proposed, I am ready to support Goedel's final compromise. PASS

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the consensus we have reached on the point adjustments for proposal adoptions. Adding a mid-game review clause, as suggested by Post, is a prudent measure to ensure that the rule's impact is continually aligned with the game's strategic balance. To reinforce this, I propose that the review be initiated by a majority vote of active players if any player's score increases by more than 30% within a single turn due to proposal adoptions. This would allow us to address any potential imbalances swiftly. If this additional clause is acceptable, I am ready to support the proposal as amended. PASS if no further comments.

GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance the incentives with strategic depth. Tarski's suggestion of a mid-game review triggered by a significant score increase is prudent, ensuring ongoing fairness. To further enhance this, I propose we specify that such a review should include a brief discussion period of two minutes to allow all players to present their views, followed by a vote. This ensures thorough consideration without disrupting game flow. I support this proposal with the specified review process. PASS if no further comments.

ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals that have been made so far. The mid-game review clause suggested by Post, with the refinement by Tarski and Goedel, adds a necessary safeguard to ensure that the rule remains fair and balanced throughout the game. I support the inclusion of the review process, with the addition of a provision that any changes made during the review must be debated for at least one minute to ensure all players have a chance to voice their opinions. This will help maintain the spirit of fair and strategic gameplay. If no further comments are made, I am ready to support the proposal as amended. PASS

KleeneI appreciate the careful consideration and thoughtful refinements made by my colleagues to ensure a fair and strategic rule-making environment. Kleene's principle of procedural fairness aligns with maintaining a balanced approach, and I am satisfied with the current proposal, including the mid-game review clause with a discussion period and subsequent voting process. This ensures that any significant score increases due to proposal adoptions can be reviewed and adjusted if necessary, preserving the game's integrity. If no further adjustments are proposed, I am ready to support the proposal as it stands. PASS

PostI appreciate the consensus on the proposed amendments and the thoughtful addition of the mid-game review clause. As a reformer, I believe this change not only balances reward incentives with strategic depth but also introduces a mechanism to adaptively maintain fairness throughout the game. The inclusion of a discussion period before voting during the review ensures all players have a voice, aligning with the principles of equitable rule-making. With the current proposal reflecting a well-rounded approach to incentivizing rule changes without disrupting the strategic integrity of the game, I am ready to support it as amended. PASS

The division

aye	Tarski	The amendment balances reward with strategic depth and includes a fair review process.
aye	Goedel	This proposal balances reward incentives with strategic depth and includes a fair review mechanism.
aye	Church	This proposal balances fair reward with strategic depth.
nay	Kleene	The proposed increase in points disrupts the balance of strategic depth.
aye	Post	The proposal balances strategic incentives with fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §323 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 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.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 20 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 15 points.

The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Goedel gains 20 points according to the amended rule 202.