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. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.This amendment encourages collaboration by rewarding proposals that gain broad support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intent behind Goedel's proposal to encourage proposals with broad support through a 10-point bonus for 75% aye votes. However, I suggest a more graduated approach: instead of a flat 10-point bonus, let's consider tiered bonuses for 70%, 75%, and 80% aye votes, rewarding incremental consensus more finely. This would incentivize not only broad support but also encourage proposals that can garner higher levels of agreement, aligning with our goal of fostering collaborative rule-making.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a tiered bonus system, as it aligns with our goal of promoting proposals that can achieve incremental consensus. To address potential concerns about complexity, I propose we start with two tiers: a 10-point bonus for 75% aye votes and a 15-point bonus for 80% aye votes. This approach balances simplicity with the incentive for broader agreement, encouraging players to seek higher levels of support.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's focus on fostering collaboration and achieving consensus. However, to ensure fairness and prevent any player from disproportionately benefiting early in the game, I propose adding a diminishing returns clause: if a player's score is above 100, the bonus for proposals receiving 75% and 80% aye votes should be reduced by half. This maintains the incentive for broad support while ensuring that the game remains competitive for all players.
KleeneI appreciate Tarski's, Goedel's, and Church's thoughtful contributions to refining the proposal. To further align with our procedural principles, I propose that the bonuses for proposals with at least 75% aye votes be structured as follows: a 5-point bonus for 70% aye, a 10-point bonus for 75% aye, and a 15-point bonus for 80% aye votes. Additionally, let's implement Church's diminishing returns clause for players with scores above 100, ensuring fairness throughout the game. This approach balances simplicity, fairness, and incentives for achieving higher consensus.
PostI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance incentives with fairness. To further refine the proposal, I suggest implementing a transparency mechanism: any proposal receiving 75% or more aye votes must include a brief rationale explaining why the proposer believes it will improve the game. This encourages thoughtful proposals and allows players to understand the intent behind each change, promoting informed voting and enhancing the overall quality of our rule-making process.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's suggestion for including a rationale with proposals receiving at least 75% aye votes. To streamline this process and maintain simplicity, I propose that the rationale requirement be optional but encouraged, with players who choose to provide one receiving a 5-point bonus. This way, we incentivize thoughtful proposals without complicating the rules, aligning with our goal of fostering transparency and informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative refinements thus far, and I support the tiered bonus system and transparency measures. To further encourage strategic depth, let's consider adding a small penalty for players whose proposals consistently fail to reach even 70% aye votes. This encourages proposers to engage more with the community and seek broader support, aligning with our goal of fostering a cooperative and dynamic rule-making environment.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, especially the rationale requirement for high-ayes, which encourages transparency and informed decision-making. However, to ensure fairness and avoid penalizing players who may have less experience in strategic proposal-making, I suggest we adjust the penalty clause proposed by Goedel. Instead of a penalty for consistently low-ayes, let's offer a "learning opportunity" bonus: any player whose proposal fails to reach 70% aye votes can participate in a mentorship session with a more experienced player. This approach not only encourages community engagement but also helps newer players improve their proposal strategies, aligning with our goal of maintaining a supportive and educational environment.
KleeneI appreciate the ongoing discussion and the emphasis on promoting strategic depth and fairness. To refine the proposal further, I propose adding a "collaborative bonus" mechanism: if a proposal receives at least 85% aye votes and has been co-authored by two or more players, each co-author gains an additional 5-point bonus. This encourages teamwork and collaboration, aligning with our goal of fostering a cooperative and inclusive rule-making environment.
PostI appreciate the collaborative bonus mechanism proposed by Kleene, as it encourages teamwork and aligns with our goals of fostering a cooperative environment. To further enhance the proposal's appeal, I suggest implementing a "community engagement" bonus: if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes and has been discussed with at least three players prior to submission, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. This incentivizes players to seek broader input and ensures that proposals are well-considered and supported, enhancing the overall quality of our rule-making process.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative bonus mechanism and the community engagement bonus proposed by Kleene and Post. To further refine the proposal, I suggest a "consistency reward": if a player successfully proposes three rule changes that each receive at least 75% aye votes consecutively, they gain an additional 10-point bonus. This encourages sustained contribution and engagement, aligning with our goal of fostering a dynamic and consistent rule-making environment.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive refinements and the emphasis on community engagement and collaboration. To further enhance the proposal's balance, let's incorporate a "reflective pause" mechanism: if a proposal receives between 70% and 75% aye votes, the proposer can choose to revisit and refine their proposal before a subsequent vote, without penalty. This encourages continuous improvement and strategic adaptation, aligning with our goal of fostering a thoughtful and responsive rule-making environment.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, especially the reflective pause mechanism, which encourages strategic refinement. To ensure that the reflective pause is used constructively, I propose a requirement: if a proposer chooses to revisit their proposal, they must engage in a brief consultation with at least one other player to incorporate feedback. This ensures that revisions are well-informed and aligned with the community's interests, fostering a collaborative and dynamic rule-making process.
KleeneI appreciate the iterative refinements and collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players, particularly the reflective pause mechanism and the community engagement bonus. To align with our goal of maintaining procedural clarity and fairness, I propose adding a "feedback transparency" clause: any player utilizing the reflective pause must publicly share the feedback received and the rationale for their revisions. This ensures that the revisiting process is transparent and promotes trust within the community, further enhancing the quality and accountability of our rule-making process.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements, particularly the feedback transparency clause, which enhances trust and accountability. To further align with our collaborative goals, I propose a "mentorship acknowledgment" bonus: if a player's revised proposal, after utilizing the reflective pause, reaches at least 80% aye votes, the mentor involved receives a 5-point bonus. This incentivizes experienced players to support others constructively, fostering a culture of mentorship and community growth.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposal lacks a diminishing returns clause to prevent early advantages and does not fully incentivize higher consensus beyond 80%. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal aligns with collaborative rule-making and incentivizes broad consensus. |
| aye | Church | Encourages broad consensus and strategic depth. |
| aye | Kleene | This proposal incentivizes strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Post | Promotes collaborative rule-making with tiered incentives |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §329 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 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.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. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.
The proposal was adopted with 80% aye votes, triggering the new rule in [202] for a 10-point bonus to Goedel.