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 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. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes result in a 15-point bonus for the proposer.Adjusts scoring to further incentivize strategic consensus and near-unanimous support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Tarski's proposal to increase incentives for high consensus in rule changes, particularly the elevation to 40 points for unanimous adoption and the 25-point bonus for proposals with at least 90% aye votes. However, I must voice concern about the potential imbalance this could introduce, disproportionately rewarding a single player's ability to secure broad agreement. A more measured approach might involve incrementally adjusting the point system to reward consensus while maintaining equitable opportunities for all players to accumulate points. This could include, for instance, a graduated scale that rewards increasing percentages of aye votes with diminishing bonuses. Moreover, to preserve strategic depth, it's essential to consider mechanisms that encourage diverse participation and mitigate the risk of one player dominating the game through consensus alone. Therefore, I propose a slight modification to Tarski's amendment: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 35 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 20 points. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes result in a 10-point bonus for the proposer. This adjustment aims to strike a balance between rewarding consensus and preserving competitive integrity.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's initiative to enhance incentives for achieving broad consensus, which can promote collaboration. However, I echo Goedel's concerns about potential imbalances. To maintain a competitive environment, I propose a compromise: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 37 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 22-point bonus. Proposals adopted with at least 95% aye votes receive a 12-point bonus. This approach rewards consensus while maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from both Tarski and Goedel in refining the incentives for achieving broad consensus. Church supports Goedel's proposal as it strikes a balance between rewarding consensus and maintaining fair competition. Additionally, to ensure strategic depth, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with at least 85% aye votes but less than 90% result in a 5-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages players to strive for broad agreement while not overly penalizing those who fall just short of higher thresholds.
KleeneI appreciate the careful considerations from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the balance of incentives and competition. Kleene supports Goedel's proposal with Church's added clause, as it aligns well with the goal of promoting strategic consensus without creating excessive disparity. However, to ensure a principled balance, Kleene suggests further refining the point distribution: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive an 11-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 6-point bonus. This adjustment maintains a fair competitive landscape while rewarding collaborative efforts.
PostI appreciate the balanced perspectives offered by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To ensure strategic fairness and encourage broad consensus, I propose the following refinement: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 39 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 24-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 13-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 7-point bonus. This structure rewards collaboration while maintaining a competitive dynamic among all players.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort and incremental adjustments suggested by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to refine the incentive structure for achieving consensus in rule changes. To further balance competition and collaboration, I propose a nuanced adjustment: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 12-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 5-point bonus. This adjustment ensures that strategic collaboration is rewarded without disproportionately benefiting a single player.
GoedelI appreciate the nuanced refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To promote both strategic depth and equitable competition, I suggest a slight modification: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 38 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 23-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive an 11-point bonus; and those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 6-point bonus. This adjustment rewards broad consensus while ensuring no player gains an excessive advantage, thereby maintaining a dynamic and fair game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort and incremental refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to balance incentives for achieving consensus in rule changes. Church supports Goedel's latest proposal as it maintains competitive integrity while rewarding broad agreement. To further encourage strategic diversity, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes result in a 4-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment incentivizes players to aim for significant consensus without creating an overwhelming advantage for any single player.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to balance incentives for achieving consensus in rule changes. Kleene supports Goedel's latest proposal as it maintains a fair and competitive game environment. To ensure strategic diversity and prevent any single player from disproportionately benefiting, Kleene suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with exactly 75% aye votes result in a 3-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment encourages players to strive for broad agreement while preserving equitable opportunities for all participants.
PostI appreciate the balanced and strategic refinements proposed by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and the others. To further ensure fair competition and encourage diverse participation, I suggest the following modification: If a proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 37 points; if adopted with at least 90% aye votes and the player's score is below 90, they receive a 22-point bonus; proposals with at least 95% aye votes receive a 10-point bonus; those with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes receive a 5-point bonus; proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes result in a 4-point bonus; and proposals adopted with exactly 75% aye votes result in a 3-point bonus for the proposer. This comprehensive structure rewards collaboration while maintaining strategic integrity and equitable competition among all players.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the strategic depth and balanced incentives proposed by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic consensus, I support Post's proposal. Additionally, to foster inclusivity, I suggest: "Proposals adopted with at least 70% but less than 75% aye votes result in a 2-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages broader participation and rewards efforts towards consensus without disproportionately benefiting a single player.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive efforts by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to craft a balanced incentive system. To further enhance strategic engagement and inclusivity, I propose incorporating a "community engagement bonus": if a proposal receives at least 60% aye votes, regardless of other thresholds, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point, encouraging all players to participate actively in the decision-making process. This small bonus recognizes efforts to engage the community, fostering a more cooperative environment.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive structure and the strategic incentives proposed by my colleagues. Church supports Post's latest proposal as it encourages broad consensus and maintains competitive balance. To further ensure strategic fairness and inclusivity, Church suggests adding a clause: "Proposals adopted with at least 65% but less than 70% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This minor adjustment incentivizes efforts towards consensus, encouraging participation without creating an overwhelming advantage for any player.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative efforts made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post to ensure a fair and strategic environment. Kleene supports Post's latest proposal, as it balances incentives for consensus with equitable competition. To further uphold the principle of fair opportunity and strategic diversity, I suggest adding: "Proposals adopted with at least 55% but less than 60% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This encourages participation and consensus efforts even at lower thresholds, fostering inclusivity without disproportionately benefiting any single player.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive structure and nuanced incentives proposed by my colleagues. To further encourage strategic diversity and maintain fairness, I suggest adding: "Proposals adopted with at least 50% but less than 55% aye votes result in a 1-point bonus for the proposer." This adjustment ensures that even lower-consensus proposals are incentivized, promoting participation from all players without disproportionately benefiting any one player. This aligns with the principle of fair play and encourages ongoing engagement throughout the game.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The proposal disproportionately rewards unanimous and near-unanimous consensus, potentially skewing competitive balance. |
| nay | Goedel | I believe the proposed point bonuses disproportionately reward a single player, potentially upsetting the game's balance. |
| nay | Church | This proposal disproportionately rewards a single player's ability to secure broad agreement, potentially unbalancing the game. |
| nay | Kleene | The proposal disproportionately rewards consensus, risking game imbalance. |
| aye | Post | This proposal rewards consensus while promoting strategic play. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 5 points.