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. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.Encourages higher consensus for bonus points and deters proposals with low support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intent behind Tarski's proposal to incentivize higher consensus for rule changes, as it could potentially enhance strategic depth. However, I propose a modification to ensure balance and prevent excessive penalties. Let us adjust the penalty threshold to 75% aye to mitigate discouragement from participating in rule proposals. This adjustment maintains strategic incentives while safeguarding player engagement. I support this modification to the proposal.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to enhance strategic depth through incentivizing higher consensus, and I concur with the adjustment to a 75% aye threshold to balance incentives and engagement. To further refine this, I propose that instead of a flat 5-point penalty for proposals adopted with less than 75% aye, let's introduce a sliding scale penalty: 3 points for less than 70%, 5 points for less than 75%. This nuanced approach encourages broader consensus without overly penalizing players, promoting a more strategic and inclusive environment. I support this modification to Tarski's proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative refinements made so far, particularly the sliding scale penalty, which ensures fairness and encourages strategic proposals. To further balance the incentives, I suggest adding a 10-point bonus for any player whose proposal is adopted with exactly 100% aye votes, rewarding perfect consensus. This addition highlights the value of unanimous agreement while maintaining a challenging yet engaging environment. I support this modification to the proposal.
KleeneI appreciate Tarski, Goedel, and Church's thoughtful refinements, particularly the sliding scale penalty and the 10-point bonus for perfect consensus. To ensure this proposal remains equitable, I propose adjusting the bonus points for higher consensus levels to be proportional to the player's current score, so players closer to the target score gain slightly less, promoting a balanced competitive environment. I support this nuanced adjustment to the proposal.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further enhance inclusivity and strategic engagement, I suggest implementing a diminishing returns system for the 85% and 80% aye bonuses. For instance, the 20-point bonus could reduce to 15 points if the player's score is between 85 and 95, and to 10 points if above 95. This ensures that the incentives remain attractive without disproportionately benefiting players nearing the target score. I support this modification to the proposal.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the proposal, particularly the introduction of a sliding scale penalty and the proportional bonuses. To further enhance strategic depth while maintaining fairness, I propose introducing a tiered bonus system for proposals adopted with more than 95% aye votes: a 15-point bonus if the player's score is below 100, and a 10-point bonus if between 100 and 120. This tiered system rewards near-perfect consensus while ensuring that incentives remain balanced across the game's progression. I support this modification to the proposal.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative and strategic refinements we've collectively made to Tarski's proposal. To further balance the incentives with strategic engagement, I propose that we cap the sliding scale penalty at a maximum of 5 points, ensuring it doesn't discourage participation. Additionally, let's introduce a small bonus, perhaps 2 points, for proposals that narrowly fail to meet the 75% threshold, rewarding those who are close to broader consensus. This could maintain engagement while still encouraging strategic depth. I support this nuanced adjustment to the proposal.
ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the strategic refinements made to Tarski's proposal. To ensure a balanced and fair competitive environment, I propose we introduce a diminishing returns mechanism for the penalties as well, where the penalty reduces from 5 to 3 points if the proposer's score is below 50. This encourages players to continue proposing rules even when they're not performing well, maintaining engagement and strategic opportunities throughout the game. I support this modification to the proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made so far, especially the introduction of a sliding scale penalty and proportional bonuses. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that any rule change proposal with a penalty should also offer a learning opportunity by granting a one-time-use "second chance" token to the proposer. This token allows them to propose one additional rule change in their next turn without penalty if their proposal is not adopted. This balances the risks of proposing with the opportunity to refine strategies, encouraging continued engagement. I support this addition to the proposal.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful and strategic refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To ensure continued engagement and mitigate any potential discouragement, I propose an additional clause: If a player's proposal receives between 60% and 75% aye votes, they gain 2 points as a participation incentive. This encourages players to continue proposing even when full consensus is challenging, promoting a dynamic and inclusive game environment. I support this modification to the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collective refinements made to the proposal, particularly the introduction of the second chance token, which balances risk with strategic opportunities. To further promote fairness and engagement, I propose a transparency clause: all proposals must include a brief rationale. This requirement will help players understand the strategic intent behind each proposal, fostering a more informed voting process. I support this modification to the proposal.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive evolution of this proposal, particularly the introduction of a rationale requirement for transparency, which aligns with my belief in fostering informed decision-making. To further enhance strategic engagement while maintaining fairness, I propose an adjustment to the second chance token: it should be granted only if the proposal receives at least 70% aye votes. This ensures that players are encouraged to refine their strategies and proposals, promoting a balance between risk and opportunity. I support this nuanced adjustment to the proposal.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, especially the rationale requirement for transparency, which aligns with my vision of a fair and strategic game environment. To further support informed decision-making and strategic depth, I propose an additional clause: if a player provides an exceptionally clear and concise rationale (as voted by a majority), they receive a 1-point bonus. This encourages clarity and engagement in the proposal process, rewarding those who contribute to a well-informed game. I support this modification to the proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the proposal, especially the addition of a bonus for clear rationales, which aligns with my commitment to transparency and strategic depth. To further enhance fairness, I propose that the sliding scale penalty also considers the proportion of abstentions: if abstentions exceed 10% of total votes, the penalty should be reduced by 1 point. This adjustment ensures that penalties are more reflective of active opposition rather than disengagement, encouraging informed participation. I support this modification to the proposal.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made thus far, especially Kleene's thoughtful consideration of abstentions in penalty calculations. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose adding a clause for a "strategy session" bonus: if a player organizes a discussion among teammates prior to proposing a rule change and it results in a proposal adopted with at least 80% aye votes, they receive an additional 3 points. This encourages collaboration and strategic planning, rewarding players for fostering team discussions and ensuring proposals are well-considered. I support this modification to the proposal.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This amendment balances strategic incentives and fairness well. |
| aye | Goedel | I appreciate the balance and strategic depth introduced by the tiered bonuses and penalties. |
| aye | Church | Supports strategic depth and fairness through graduated incentives. |
| aye | Kleene | Supports strategic depth with proportional incentives and penalties. |
| aye | Post | This proposal enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness through balanced incentives. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §328 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 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.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. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Tarski gains 30 points according to the amended rule 202.