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 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.Encourages more strategic and inclusive proposals by adjusting points based on support levels.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for extending debate time to allow thorough consideration, which could foster more strategic play. However, I am concerned that increasing the point gain for unanimous adoptions to 30 could disproportionately reward players already ahead, potentially widening the gap between scores. To balance this, I propose a cap on the maximum points a player can earn from unanimous adoptions, say 25, ensuring that the incentive remains substantial without creating an insurmountable lead. This adjustment maintains strategic depth while promoting a more level playing field.
PASS
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's concern about maintaining fairness in point distribution. To address this while encouraging thoughtful debate, I suggest we implement a scaling mechanism where the points for unanimous adoption decrease as a player's score increases. For example, a player with a score below 50 receives 30 points, between 50 and 100 receives 25 points, and above 100 receives 20 points. This way, players at different stages of the game have equitable opportunities to close the gap, promoting a more competitive environment.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's scaling mechanism for maintaining competitive balance and Tarski's cap idea for preventing excessive point gains. To further ensure fairness, I propose adding a small bonus point for all players who actively participate in the debate, say 2 points, to encourage engagement regardless of the vote outcome. This approach incentivizes thoughtful participation and maintains strategic depth, while also providing all players with a fair chance to influence the game's progression.
KleeneI appreciate Church's proposal for rewarding participation to foster engagement, and Goedel's scaling mechanism to balance point distribution. However, I am concerned that the proposed five-minute debate limit may still be insufficient for thoroughly considering complex rule changes. To address this while ensuring timely gameplay, I suggest we implement a flexible debate time that adjusts based on the complexity of the proposal, capped at a maximum of seven minutes. This approach would allow more nuanced discussions for intricate proposals, maintaining strategic depth without unduly lengthening the game. Additionally, to encourage fairness and collaboration, I propose that if a proposal garners unanimous support, all players receive a small bonus, say 3 points, to acknowledge collective strategic decision-making.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion for flexible debate time to ensure thorough discussion, which aligns with my focus on fair and strategic play. To further balance inclusivity and strategic depth, I propose adding a clause where if a proposal receives unanimous support but is later found to have unintended consequences, a re-evaluation can be requested within two turns, allowing for adjustments. This encourages careful consideration and collaboration, ensuring that rule changes benefit the game as a whole.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all, particularly Post's suggestion for re-evaluation, which adds a safety net for unintended consequences. However, to ensure that this mechanism isn't exploited, I propose a condition that a re-evaluation request can only be made if a majority of players agree that significant unforeseen issues have arisen. This maintains the integrity of the game and discourages frivolous use of the re-evaluation clause, while still allowing for necessary corrections.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful proposals from everyone. To address Tarski's concern about re-evaluation requests being exploited, I suggest that any re-evaluation must include a penalty of losing 5 points for the proposer, unless there is unanimous agreement on the necessity. This ensures that rule changes are made with caution and encourages players to thoroughly consider the implications before proposing, promoting a fair and strategic gameplay environment.
ChurchI appreciate the depth of discussion and the emphasis on maintaining strategic balance. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose that in addition to the scaling mechanism, we introduce a diminishing return for high scorers on unanimous adoptions. For instance, a player with over 100 points would receive only 10 points for unanimous adoption, ensuring that the game remains competitive and not overly skewed towards those already ahead. This adjustment promotes a fair playing field and encourages continuous engagement from all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's proposal for diminishing returns on unanimous adoptions to ensure competitive balance, which aligns with my concern for fairness. To further support this, I suggest we also adjust the bonus for unanimous support so that the proposer receives 25 points, and all players gain 1 point, maintaining the spirit of collaboration while ensuring the incentive doesn't overly benefit the proposer. This adjustment balances strategic depth and fairness across all players, regardless of their current score.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts to balance strategic depth and fairness. To further promote engagement and mitigate strategic disparities, I propose that for proposals adopted with 70% to 75% votes, all players receive a bonus of 2 points, not just the proposer. This encourages participation across the board and keeps the competition lively for everyone, ensuring that contributions to the game's evolution are recognized collectively.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate Post's suggestion for collective bonuses to promote engagement and fairness, which complements Goedel's scaling mechanism well. However, to further balance strategic depth, I propose that the flexible debate time Kleene suggested be limited to proposals that receive at least 50% initial support in preliminary votes. This ensures that only proposals with a reasonable likelihood of acceptance get extended discussion time, maintaining strategic integrity while preventing potential delays in gameplay. Additionally, to address potential exploitation, I support Goedel's penalty for re-evaluation requests, as it ensures that such requests are made judiciously, preserving the game's fairness and strategic depth.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful balance proposed by all players, particularly Tarski's idea to limit extended debate time to proposals with initial support. To ensure this mechanism promotes strategic depth while preventing delays, I suggest adding a rule that only allows up to two proposals per game to receive extended debate time. This keeps gameplay engaging and ensures that players must consider their proposals carefully. Additionally, I support the collective bonus system for proposals adopted with 70% to 75% votes, as it encourages active participation and maintains a competitive environment. Let's finalize these adjustments to enhance the strategic play and fairness for everyone.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive efforts to balance strategic depth and fairness. To further ensure inclusivity, I propose that the initial support threshold for extended debate time be set at 60% rather than 50%, allowing only proposals with significant backing to receive additional time. This adjustment helps maintain strategic integrity by filtering out less promising proposals while encouraging thoughtful participation. Additionally, I support the idea of a collective bonus for proposals adopted with 70% to 75% votes, as it fosters a collaborative environment and keeps all players engaged. Let's integrate these refinements to promote a fair and competitive game for everyone.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collective effort to enhance strategic depth and fairness. To further balance the proposal, I suggest that if a rule change is later found to have unintended consequences and a re-evaluation is requested, the proposer must provide a concise rationale for why the change remains beneficial, ensuring that re-evaluation requests are made with careful consideration and not for strategic advantage. This maintains the procedural integrity of the game while allowing for necessary adjustments.
PostI appreciate Kleene's insistence on a rationale for re-evaluation to prevent strategic exploitation, which aligns with my focus on maintaining procedural integrity. To further balance strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the rationale for re-evaluation must be reviewed and approved by at least three players before proceeding. This ensures that only genuinely necessary re-evaluations are considered, maintaining the game's strategic and competitive balance.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances point distribution while encouraging strategic play. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances strategic depth and inclusivity effectively. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances strategic depth with inclusivity. |
| nay | Kleene | The increase in point gain for unanimous adoption disproportionately favors leading players. |
| aye | Post | Encourages strategic proposals with a fair point distribution. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §327 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 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 five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Goedel gains 30 points according to the amended rule 202.