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 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.Shorten debate time to ensure the game progresses more swiftly.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intent behind shortening the debate period, as it could increase the pace of play, but I am concerned that reducing the debate time to three minutes might compromise thoughtful deliberation, especially for complex proposals. To strike a balance, I suggest maintaining a four-minute debate period instead. This adjustment would allow sufficient time for consideration while still improving efficiency. I'm open to negotiating this change with any player who supports my proposal to ensure its adoption.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal to shorten the debate period to four minutes, as it maintains a balance between efficiency and thoughtful discussion. To ensure broad support and address any concerns, I propose a slight amendment: allow for an optional one-minute extension if all players agree during the debate. This compromise provides flexibility for more complex proposals while generally improving the pace of play. I look forward to reaching a consensus and am open to further refinements to achieve this.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative efforts and the proposed compromise of a four-minute debate period with a potential one-minute extension. While this adjustment balances efficiency and deliberation, I suggest adding a clause that any extension beyond one minute requires unanimous consent. This ensures that extensions are used judiciously and maintains fairness, preventing potential strategic delays. I support this refined proposal and look forward to its adoption.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements to the proposal, particularly the balance between efficiency and thoroughness with a four-minute debate and the option for a one-minute extension. To ensure fairness, I propose that the option for an extension can only be exercised once per turn, preventing potential strategic abuse. I support this refined proposal and am open to further discussions to secure broad consensus.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further ensure fairness and prevent any potential strategic manipulation of the extension, I suggest adding a rule that if an extension is used, the proposing player must forgo the 15-point bonus for proposals adopted with at least 75% aye. This encourages judicious use of extensions and aligns with our goal of efficient yet thoughtful deliberation. I support this proposal and am open to further discussions to achieve consensus.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive input from my colleagues, especially the safeguard of forfeiting the 15-point bonus for extensions. To further align with our strategic goals, I propose that an extension can only be granted if no player has already used an extension during the current round. This ensures the rule remains fair and prevents repetitive strategic delays. I support this refined proposal and am ready to negotiate for its adoption.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by my colleagues, particularly the fair use of extensions. To ensure clarity and transparency, I suggest adding a requirement for a formal request to be made for an extension, which must be acknowledged by all players before the extension is granted. This will prevent any misunderstandings and maintain the integrity of the debate process. I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the detailed refinements proposed by all, especially Goedel's suggestion for a formal request for extensions. To ensure transparency and fairness, I propose adding a simple rule that any extension request must be made with at least one minute remaining in the debate period. This ensures that the request is timely and that the debate period is not prematurely shortened. I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thorough refinements to ensure fair and strategic gameplay. To further solidify transparency, I propose that any extension request, along with its rationale, be briefly stated before granting it. This will help all players understand the necessity of the extension, maintaining a fair and collaborative environment. I support this proposal and am open to further discussions to secure consensus. PASS
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by all players to ensure a balanced and fair debate process. To further enhance transparency and prevent any potential strategic manipulation, I suggest that any extension request and its rationale must be visible to all players, perhaps by requiring the proposer to state it aloud or type it in a shared document. This ensures clarity and maintains the integrity of our collaborative gameplay. I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the detailed proposal from Post about ensuring transparency through visible extension requests. To further enhance clarity, I propose that if an extension is granted, the proposer must immediately pause the debate and allow a brief summary of their proposal to be reiterated, ensuring all players are fully informed before proceeding. This will help maintain thoughtful deliberation while respecting the proposed time adjustments. I support this refined proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements to ensure transparency and fairness in the proposal process. To further support collaborative decision-making, I suggest that if the extension request includes a summary of the proposal, any objections to the extension must be stated within 15 seconds, ensuring a swift and efficient resolution. This keeps the debate focused and respects the agreed-upon time constraints. I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements proposed by my fellow players. To ensure that the debate remains focused and productive, I suggest adding a clause that any extension request must not only be visible but also accompanied by a brief, clear rationale, limited to no more than 15 words. This will help maintain transparency while ensuring the debate stays concise and purposeful. I support this final proposal and am ready to facilitate its adoption. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal and its emphasis on transparency and fairness. To ensure a principled approach, I propose that any extension request, along with its rationale, be recorded in the official game log. This will maintain a clear record of all extensions, promoting accountability and fairness in our discussions. I support this proposal and am open to further negotiations to achieve consensus. PASS
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the emphasis on transparency and accountability. To ensure the proposal's alignment with our strategic goals, I suggest that any recorded extension request in the game log should include the proposer's current score, providing context for the necessity of the extension. This additional detail will help all players assess the fairness of the request and promote balanced gameplay. I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances efficiency with thorough deliberation and promotes collaborative rule-making. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances efficiency with thoughtful deliberation. |
| aye | Church | The proposal balances efficiency with thoughtful deliberation, and includes safeguards for fairness. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal maintains fairness and encourages thoughtful debate. |
| aye | Post | This proposal maintains a balance between efficiency and thoughtful deliberation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Tarski 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 75, 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 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 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, awarding 20 points as per rule 202.