The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five 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.Extending debate time balances discussion and strategy, promoting more thoughtful proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to extend the debate time to five minutes, as it encourages thorough discussion and potentially more informed decisions. However, I am concerned about the impact on game pacing and the increased opportunity for strategic delay. To address this, I propose a compromise: extend the debate time to four minutes and introduce a one-minute warning before the debate ends. This balances the need for thorough discussion with efficient game progress.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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."
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful approach to balancing thorough debate with game pacing. To further enhance strategic depth and player engagement, I propose adding a mechanism to reward players who contribute meaningful insights during the debate. Specifically, players who are recognized by at least two others for their contributions could receive an extra 5 points if their proposal is adopted. This addition incentivizes active participation and enriches the strategic landscape of our game.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful debate contributions receive an extra 5 points if their proposal is adopted."
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's proposal to extend the debate to four minutes with a one-minute warning, as it strikes a balance between thorough discussion and maintaining game momentum. I also welcome Goedel's suggestion to reward meaningful debate contributions, which can enhance engagement and strategic depth. To support these ideas, I propose a slight modification: let's allow players to earn up to 5 points for debate contributions, with the total distributed among those recognized, ensuring the recognition is equitable. This way, we encourage active participation while maintaining fairness in scoring.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful debate contributions may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted."
KleeneI appreciate both the extension of debate time and the addition of debate contribution rewards, as these changes align with my principles of fostering thorough deliberation and strategic engagement. However, I am concerned about the potential for subjective interpretation of "meaningful" contributions, which could lead to disputes and inconsistent application. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that recognized contributions be limited to specific categories such as logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity, and that each player can only be recognized once per proposal.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories (logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity) may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal."
PASS
PostI appreciate the efforts to refine and improve the proposal for rule 202, especially the structured criteria for recognizing debate contributions suggested by Kleene. This structured approach enhances fairness and clarity, aligning with my advocacy for transparent and strategic rule-making. I propose a small adjustment to further incentivize strategic participation: introduce a provision that if the debate time is fully utilized (four minutes), the proposing player receives an additional 5 points, encouraging efficient use of time and promoting active engagement. This small tweak can further balance thoroughness with strategic incentives.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories (logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity) may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points."
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal for [202], and I commend Post's initiative to incentivize the full use of debate time. To ensure that all players remain engaged throughout the extended debate and to encourage thoughtful contributions, I propose that players who engage in the debate but do not propose the rule change can also earn up to 3 points if they are recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions. This modification would further promote active participation and collaborative dialogue among all players.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories (logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity) may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points."
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to reward non-proposing players for their contributions, as it fosters a collaborative environment and encourages active participation from all players. To ensure fair recognition, I propose that the points for non-proposing players be awarded based on the significance and impact of their contributions, assessed collectively by all players at the end of the debate. This approach maintains equity and reinforces the value of strategic engagement.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories (logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity) may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions."
ChurchI appreciate the depth and collaborative effort that has gone into refining this proposal, particularly the introduction of a structured recognition system for debate contributions. This approach not only incentivizes active participation but also ensures fairness and strategic engagement. However, I suggest a slight modification to further balance the scoring system: let's cap the total additional points for debate contributions (both proposing and non-proposing players) at 7 points per proposal. This ensures that while contributions are rewarded, the focus remains on the primary objective of advancing the game through rule changes.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories (logical analysis, strategic insight, or procedural clarity) may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions."
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the proposal for [202], particularly the structured recognition system for debate contributions, which aligns well with my proceduralist principles. To further ensure fairness and clarity, I propose that the recognition criteria be explicitly detailed in the ruleset to prevent ambiguity and potential disputes. Specifically, we should define what constitutes "logical analysis," "strategic insight," and "procedural clarity," providing examples for each category. This additional clarity will ensure that all players understand the criteria and can apply them consistently, fostering a fair and transparent debate environment.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions."
PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated in evolving the proposal for [202]. The structured criteria for debate contributions are a significant step toward ensuring fairness and clarity. To further enhance our game's strategic depth, I suggest incorporating a feedback mechanism where players can reflect on the effectiveness of the debate after each turn. This feedback, if positive and agreed upon by a majority, could grant an additional 2 points to the proposing player, encouraging not only participation but also quality engagement and continuous improvement in our discussions.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points."
**PASS**
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements made to this proposal for [202], particularly the structured criteria for debate contributions and the inclusion of post-debate feedback as a point incentive. These adjustments align with my emphasis on clarity and strategic engagement. To ensure the proposal maintains a balanced focus, I propose that the additional points for debate contributions and feedback (up to a total of 9 points) should not count towards the target score of 150 points. This distinction will help preserve the primary objective of the game: to reach the target score through rule changes, while still rewarding valuable contributions and engagement.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal, not counting towards the target score. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points, not counting towards the target score."
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal for [202], particularly the emphasis on rewarding strategic engagement and meaningful contributions. To further align with the game's goals and ensure fair play, I propose an additional clarification: the points for debate contributions and feedback should be awarded immediately following the vote, to maintain transparency and consistency in scoring. This immediate recognition will reinforce positive behavior and strategic participation.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal, not counting towards the target score. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points, not counting towards the target score. All additional points for debate contributions and feedback are awarded immediately after the vote to ensure transparency and consistency."
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive nature of the revisions made to the proposal for [202], especially the immediate awarding of points for debate contributions, which promotes transparency and fair play. To ensure the proposal remains balanced and clear, I suggest adding a mechanism for documenting recognized contributions and post-debate feedback, perhaps through a brief written summary agreed upon by the players involved. This documentation would serve as a reference to prevent disputes and ensure that the criteria are applied consistently across all proposals.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal, not counting towards the target score. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points, not counting towards the target score. All additional points for debate contributions and feedback are awarded immediately after the vote to ensure transparency and consistency. A brief written summary of recognized contributions and post-debate feedback, agreed upon by the players involved, shall be documented for reference."
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the proposal for [202], particularly the emphasis on structured recognition and the inclusion of a written summary to ensure transparency and consistency. These additions align with my proceduralist principles. To further support clarity and prevent disputes, I propose specifying that the written summary be limited to 50 words, ensuring it remains concise yet effective in capturing the essence of contributions and feedback.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal, not counting towards the target score. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points, not counting towards the target score. All additional points for debate contributions and feedback are awarded immediately after the vote to ensure transparency and consistency. A brief written summary of recognized contributions and post-debate feedback, agreed upon by the players involved, shall be documented for reference, limited to 50 words to maintain conciseness."
PASS
PostI appreciate the diligent efforts and thoughtful refinements made to the proposal for [202], especially the inclusion of a concise written summary to ensure transparency and consistency. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest incorporating a feedback loop where players can periodically review and, if necessary, refine the criteria for recognizing debate contributions. This mechanism would allow us to adapt to evolving strategies and maintain a fair and engaging environment.
Revised proposal for [202]: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to four minutes with a one-minute warning before the end, 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. Players recognized by at least two others for meaningful contributions in specified categories—logical analysis (e.g., identifying inconsistencies), strategic insight (e.g., proposing viable alternatives), or procedural clarity (e.g., explaining rule implications)—may collectively earn up to 5 points, distributed among them, if their proposal is adopted, with a cap of 7 points total for all debate contributions per proposal, not counting towards the target score. Each player can be recognized only once per proposal. If the debate uses the full four minutes, the proposing player gains an additional 5 points. Non-proposing players recognized for contributions can earn up to 3 points, awarded based on collective assessment of the significance and impact of their contributions. If post-debate feedback is positive and agreed upon by a majority, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points, not counting towards the target score. All additional points for debate contributions and feedback are awarded immediately after the vote to ensure transparency and consistency. A brief written summary of recognized contributions and post-debate feedback, agreed upon by the players involved, shall be documented for reference, limited to 50 words to maintain conciseness. A periodic review mechanism allows players to refine the criteria for recognizing contributions, ensuring adaptability and fairness."
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposed amendment extends debate time unnecessarily, potentially slowing game progress. |
| aye | Goedel | This amendment encourages thorough discussion while maintaining strategic incentives. |
| aye | Church | This proposal enhances strategic depth and fair engagement in the game. |
| abstain | Kleene | I prefer to wait for more comprehensive proposal refinements. |
| aye | Post | This proposal incentivizes strategic play and active participation, aligning with our goals. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five 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 with a division of 3 aye, 1 nay, 1 abstain, which does not meet the unanimity or 75% threshold for scoring, and no rule creates or moves a ledger.