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 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.To incentivize the introduction of innovative rules that enhance strategic diversity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intent to reward strategic innovation, but I propose a slight refinement for clarity and fairness. The bonus for introducing a novel mechanism should be granted only if the new mechanism is not just unique, but also demonstrably enhances the strategic depth or balance of the game. This ensures that points are awarded for meaningful contributions rather than novelty alone. I propose: "An additional 15-point bonus is awarded if the rule change introduces a novel mechanism that is shown to enhance the strategic depth or balance of the game."
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to ensure that the bonus for introducing a novel mechanism encourages meaningful enhancements to our game. To build on this, I suggest we define "strategic depth or balance" more concretely by requiring a brief rationale explaining how the proposed mechanism achieves these goals. This way, we can ensure clarity and fairness in awarding the bonus, encouraging thoughtful and impactful innovations. Let's work together to refine this idea into a rule that benefits all players.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit in defining "strategic depth or balance." To further ensure fairness, I propose that any rationale submitted for a novel mechanism be subject to a brief review by all players before the vote. This review process would allow us to collectively assess whether the proposal genuinely enhances the game, promoting transparency and mutual understanding. Let's refine the proposal to include this review step, ensuring that points are awarded for truly beneficial innovations.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church in refining this proposal. To ensure clarity and avoid potential disputes, I propose that the review process for assessing the strategic depth or balance of a novel mechanism be time-bound, with a maximum of two minutes per player. This will help maintain the flow of the game while ensuring fair evaluation. Let's incorporate this time-bound review into the proposal to balance transparency with efficiency.
PostPost: I appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal and the introduction of a time-bound review for novel mechanisms. To ensure fairness and prevent potential bias, I suggest that during the review process, players can only comment on the rationale itself and not on the player proposing it. This focus on the content rather than the individual will encourage objective assessments and maintain the collaborative spirit. Let's incorporate this clarification to enhance our decision-making process.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly the focus on ensuring fairness and encouraging meaningful innovations. To further enhance clarity and prevent any potential disputes, I suggest adding a provision that if players are unable to agree on the strategic depth or balance of a novel mechanism within the review time, the decision defaults to the proposer's rationale unless a supermajority (75% of players) disagrees. This ensures the game progresses smoothly while still allowing for meaningful input from all players. Let's incorporate this default decision mechanism to balance efficiency with inclusivity.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive suggestions from all players, especially the addition of a default decision mechanism to maintain game flow. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest we include a provision for players to offer constructive feedback on the rationale during the review process. This feedback can be considered by the proposer for future iterations, fostering a collaborative environment. Let's incorporate this to encourage continuous improvement and mutual learning.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive structure of this proposal, particularly the emphasis on fairness and strategic depth. However, to prevent any potential for disputes over the novelty of mechanisms, I suggest we explicitly define what constitutes a "novel mechanism" in the rule. This clarity will help all players understand and agree on what innovations are rewarded, ensuring consistency and fairness in point allocation. Let's refine the proposal to include a clear definition of "novel mechanism" that enhances strategic depth or balance, thus fostering a more predictable and engaging gameplay environment for everyone.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative efforts to define "novel mechanism" and ensure fairness in awarding bonuses for strategic depth. To further ensure objectivity, I propose that the review process should not only assess whether the mechanism is novel but also require it to pass a "strategic significance test" agreed upon at the start of the game. This test would provide a clear framework for evaluating proposals, reducing ambiguity and promoting consistency in scoring. Let's include this test to enhance the clarity and fairness of our rule changes.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to define "novel mechanism" and the introduction of a "strategic significance test" by Kleene. To ensure the test remains relevant and adaptable as the game evolves, I propose that we establish a periodic review of the test itself, perhaps every ten turns, where players can suggest modifications based on the evolving dynamics of our game. This will allow us to maintain a fair and strategic environment that reflects the current state of play, encouraging continuous innovation and adaptability. Let's incorporate this periodic review to keep our game both challenging and fair.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions made by all players, particularly the proposal for a periodic review of the "strategic significance test." To ensure the review process remains efficient and constructive, I propose that any modifications to the test be proposed by players with a supermajority of 75% agreement, thus maintaining a balance between flexibility and stability. Let's incorporate this requirement to ensure that our game evolves strategically while upholding fairness and consistency.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive proposals and the emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and fairness. To further streamline the periodic review of the "strategic significance test," I suggest that any proposed changes during these reviews be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining their intended impact on the game's dynamics. This will help ensure that all modifications are purposeful and beneficial, fostering a transparent and strategic evolution of our ruleset. Let's incorporate this requirement for rationale to enhance clarity and purpose in our rule changes.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative refinement of the "strategic significance test" and the requirement for rationales. To further ensure fairness, let's allow players to submit anonymous feedback during the review process, which can be considered alongside public comments. This will encourage honest input and help us maintain a balanced and strategic environment.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the focus on maintaining both strategic depth and fairness. To enhance clarity and ensure that the "strategic significance test" remains adaptable, I propose that any anonymous feedback be summarized and shared with the group before decisions are made. This transparency will allow all players to consider the collective input while maintaining the integrity of the review process. Let's incorporate this summary step to foster an inclusive and informed decision-making environment.
PostI appreciate the thorough discussions around the "strategic significance test" and the emphasis on maintaining fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure that the review process remains balanced and constructive, I propose that during the periodic review, players can suggest a temporary suspension of the bonus for novel mechanisms if it is determined that the current game dynamics do not favor new innovations. This suspension should be re-evaluated after every subsequent review to ensure it remains necessary, providing flexibility while encouraging meaningful and timely innovations. Let's incorporate this provision to maintain a fair and adaptable gameplay environment.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This amendment promotes strategic depth and innovation. |
| aye | Goedel | Encourages strategic innovation and clarity, fostering a collaborative environment. |
| aye | Church | Encourages meaningful innovations while maintaining fairness. |
| nay | Kleene | The rule's complexity and subjective criteria might lead to disputes and inefficiencies. |
| aye | Post | This encourages meaningful strategic innovation with clear criteria. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Tarski 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 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.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 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Tarski gains 30 points according to rule 202.