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 40 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 10-point penalty for the proposer.To incentivize higher consensus and strategic proposal crafting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for its attempt to enhance strategic depth by increasing rewards and penalties. However, I am concerned about the potential for overly stringent thresholds to discourage participation, particularly from players with lower scores. I propose a compromise: maintain the three-minute debate but adjust the point thresholds to 80% for additional bonuses and a 15% penalty for proposals adopted with less than 80% aye votes. This approach balances incentivizing quality proposals with maintaining an inclusive environment for all players.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful compromise on maintaining a balanced environment. To further encourage strategic play while ensuring inclusivity, I propose we consider a tiered bonus system: an 85% threshold for a 25-point bonus and a 10-point penalty for less than 75% aye votes. This adjustment rewards strong consensus and deters low-quality proposals without being overly punitive, fostering a more dynamic and fair game experience.
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's proposals for their strategic considerations. To balance the need for quality proposals with inclusivity, I suggest a middle ground: keep the three-minute debate but set the additional bonus at 80% with a 20-point reward, and impose a 10-point penalty for less than 70% aye votes. This approach encourages high-quality proposals while minimizing discouragement for lower-scoring players.
KleeneI appreciate the nuanced proposals from Tarski and Church, as well as Goedel's focus on strategic incentives. To support a balanced and fair game environment, I propose maintaining the three-minute debate and setting a 75% threshold for a 20-point bonus, with a 5-point penalty for less than 70% aye votes. This ensures quality proposals are incentivized without overly punishing lower-scoring players.
PostI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the strategic considerations from my colleagues. To further balance incentives and fairness, I propose a slight modification: keep the three-minute debate, set the additional bonus at 80% with a 25-point reward, and impose a 10-point penalty for less than 75% aye votes. This approach rewards strong consensus while ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. Let's strive for a proposal that reflects our shared values of innovation and inclusivity.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and compromises suggested by my esteemed colleagues. To further refine Goedel's proposal while incorporating our collective insights, I propose the following amendment to [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 40 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 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 10-point penalty for the proposer. This proposal balances rewarding high-quality proposals with maintaining an inclusive environment for all players.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's comprehensive proposal, as it effectively balances the need for strategic depth with inclusivity. To further align with our shared goal of fairness and innovation, I suggest we adopt Tarski's proposal with a slight adjustment: if a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. This small tweak acknowledges the effort to reach a significant consensus threshold, encouraging precision in garnering support. Let's move forward with this balanced approach.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's proposal for its balance between rewarding quality proposals and maintaining inclusivity. To further ensure fairness, I suggest adding a clause that grants a 5-point bonus for proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, recognizing the effort in achieving a strong consensus. This slight adjustment encourages precision while supporting players at different scoring levels. Let's proceed with this refinement.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski and Church, emphasizing precision in achieving consensus. To further promote strategic play without overly penalizing lower-scoring players, I propose adding a clause that if a proposal receives between 75% and less than 80% aye votes, the proposing player gains a 10-point bonus. This adjustment encourages players to strive for strong but not necessarily overwhelming support, balancing the incentives with inclusivity. Let's incorporate this to encourage robust proposal strategies.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts and the strategic refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I suggest adding a clause that, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus. This encourages players to aim for precise consensus without being overly punitive. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to promote balanced gameplay and innovation.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the strategic depth and inclusivity brought forth by my colleagues. To further encourage precision in achieving consensus, I propose adding a clause that if a proposal receives between 70% and less than 75% aye votes, the proposing player gains a 5-point bonus. This encourages players to aim for a reasonable level of support, balancing incentives with accessibility for players at all score levels. Let's integrate this refinement to promote balanced and strategic gameplay.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, ensuring it rewards strategic consensus while maintaining inclusivity. To further encourage high-quality proposals without being overly punitive, I suggest we include a clause that if a proposal is adopted with exactly 90% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus. This acknowledges the exceptional support achieved while keeping the game engaging for all players. Let's integrate this to enhance our balanced approach.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements aimed at balancing strategic depth with fairness. To ensure inclusivity while rewarding consensus, I propose adding a clause: if a proposal is adopted with exactly 70% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. This encourages players to aim for a solid yet attainable level of support, fostering a more dynamic and accessible game environment. Let's adopt this balanced proposal.
KleeneI appreciate the efforts to balance incentives with inclusivity. To ensure fairness, I propose adding a clause that if a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus, acknowledging the precise achievement of this threshold. This encourages strategic play without overly penalizing lower-scoring players. Let's integrate this to maintain a balanced and engaging game environment.
PostI appreciate the collective effort to fine-tune the proposal for optimal balance between strategic depth and inclusivity. To further align with our shared goal of fairness while encouraging precision in achieving consensus, I propose a slight modification: if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus, and if adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, they gain an additional 10-point bonus. This dual-tiered approach rewards both significant and exceptional consensus, promoting thoughtful proposal strategies while maintaining accessibility for players at all scoring levels. Let's adopt this comprehensive proposal to enhance our game's strategic and inclusive environment.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The 90% threshold is excessively high and may discourage participation, especially from lower-scoring players. |
| aye | Goedel | This amendment balances strategic depth and inclusivity, rewarding high-quality proposals. |
| aye | Church | This proposal balances rewarding consensus with maintaining inclusivity. |
| nay | Kleene | The high threshold of 90% aye votes disproportionately benefits higher-scoring players and discourages participation. |
| aye | Post | This proposal balances rewarding quality proposals with maintaining an inclusive environment. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.