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 75, they gain an additional 15 points.Increase the threshold for additional points to incentivize strategic proposals and balance competition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for increasing the score threshold from 50 to 75 for the additional 15-point bonus. This adjustment could encourage more strategic voting and ensure that players with slightly higher scores also benefit from the bonus, potentially fostering more dynamic gameplay. However, I suggest that the threshold be set at 60 instead of 75, to balance between inclusivity and maintaining a competitive edge. This middle ground might better align with the current scoring trends and player standings.
GoedelI appreciate the spirit of compromise in Tarski's suggestion to lower the threshold to 60. While I understand the intention to encourage inclusivity, I propose we adopt the threshold of 75 as initially suggested, with an added caveat: the 15-point bonus is available to players whose score is below 75 but have participated in at least three successful proposals. This refinement aims to reward both strategic voting and active engagement in rule changes.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful considerations from both Tarski and Goedel. Church: To balance the proposed threshold adjustments and engagement incentives, I suggest the bonus be available to players with scores below 70 who have successfully proposed at least two changes. This compromise could enhance strategic participation without overly restricting the bonus, maintaining fairness and engagement.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the nuanced proposals from Tarski, Goedel, and Church. Kleene suggests setting the threshold at 65 with the requirement of at least two successful proposals. This balances inclusivity and active participation, encouraging strategic gameplay without overly restricting access to the bonus.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from my colleagues, particularly Kleene's suggestion. To further refine this amendment, I propose that the bonus be available to players with scores below 68 who have participated in at least two successful proposals. This adjustment aims to balance inclusivity and active engagement, fostering strategic gameplay while ensuring fairness across the board. Let's work towards a consensus that benefits us all.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, and the careful consideration given to balancing inclusivity and strategic engagement. I suggest a threshold of 66 points, with a requirement of at least two successful proposals. This adjustment aims to promote strategic participation while ensuring the bonus remains accessible to a broad range of players, aligning with our shared goal of dynamic and fair gameplay. Let's refine this proposal collaboratively, ensuring it benefits us all effectively.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative efforts in refining the proposal for a balanced scoring threshold. Building on Post's suggestion, I propose a threshold of 67 points for the additional bonus, with the requirement that players have participated in at least two successful proposals. This compromise maintains strategic engagement while ensuring broader access to the bonus, fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's move forward with this refined proposal to benefit all players.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful proposals made by my colleagues, particularly Tarski's suggestion of a 66-point threshold with two successful proposals. Church: To further refine and align with the goal of equitable gameplay, I propose adjusting the threshold to 67 points, aligning with Goedel's latest suggestion. Additionally, let's consider adding a condition that the player must have voted aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns. This adjustment aims to promote not only strategic participation but also active engagement in the rule-making process, fostering a dynamic and fair gaming environment. Let's work towards adopting this refined proposal to benefit all players effectively.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. Kleene supports the threshold of 67 points with two successful proposals, and I believe it strikes a fair balance between inclusivity and rewarding strategic engagement. However, to further align with Church's recent suggestion, I propose adding a condition that the player must have voted aye on at least one proposal within the last four turns. This adjustment ensures active participation in the rule-making process while maintaining fairness. Let's work towards a consensus that benefits us all.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort to reach a fair compromise. To address Kleene's concern about the voting condition, I propose we adjust it to require voting aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns, as initially suggested by Church. This maintains a balance between active engagement and inclusivity, ensuring the bonus is accessible to those who contribute positively to the game's evolution. Let's adopt this refined proposal to benefit all players effectively.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the constructive dialogue we've engaged in, and the efforts to balance inclusivity with strategic engagement. To align with the current consensus, I support the threshold of 67 points, with the requirement of participating in at least two successful proposals and voting aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns. This refined proposal promotes fair participation and strategic involvement, ensuring a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment for all. Let's move forward with this well-rounded amendment.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the consensus around a 67-point threshold with the condition of at least two successful proposals and voting aye on one proposal within the last three turns. To ensure this proposal is as inclusive as possible, I propose we add a provision for players who have abstained on one proposal in the last three turns to still qualify for the bonus, provided they meet all other conditions. This small adjustment could encourage players to engage more actively without penalizing strategic abstentions, further enhancing our collaborative and dynamic gameplay environment. Let's adopt this final refinement to benefit all players effectively.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collaborative effort to refine this amendment. Church: To ensure we maintain strategic depth and fairness, I support the refined proposal with a 67-point threshold, two successful proposals, voting aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns, and allowing one abstention. This balanced approach encourages active and strategic participation while remaining inclusive. Let's adopt this proposal to benefit all players effectively.
KleeneI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort to reach a balanced proposal. Kleene supports the refined amendment with a 67-point threshold, two successful proposals, voting aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns, and allowing for one abstention. This proposal ensures strategic engagement while maintaining inclusivity. Let's move forward with this well-considered amendment to benefit all players effectively.
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the detailed refinement of this proposal. To ensure we maintain strategic depth while promoting inclusivity, I support the proposal with a 67-point threshold, two successful proposals, voting aye on at least one proposal within the last three turns, and allowing for one abstention. This balanced approach encourages active participation without overly restricting the bonus. Let's adopt this proposal to benefit all players effectively.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances inclusivity and strategic engagement effectively. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances inclusivity and strategic engagement. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances strategic participation and inclusivity. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal promotes strategic participation and inclusivity. |
| aye | Post | Promotes strategic engagement and inclusivity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
Goedel's proposal was adopted unanimously, so Goedel gains 20 points according to rule 202.