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 95% 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 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.This amendment rewards innovation and consensus while promoting creative rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to encourage innovation with an additional bonus for novel mechanisms. While this fosters creativity, I suggest refining the criteria for what constitutes a "novel mechanism" to prevent ambiguity and ensure fair application. Additionally, to balance the potential for excessive point inflation, let's consider capping the total bonus points available from a single proposal. This way, we maintain strategic depth without disproportionately rewarding certain types of proposals.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestions to clarify and cap the bonuses for novel mechanisms. To balance innovation with strategic play, I propose defining "novel mechanism" as any rule change that introduces a new game dynamic or alters existing interactions, while capping total bonus points from a proposal at 50 points. This should encourage creativity without overwhelming the scoring system.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the constructive dialogue between Goedel and Tarski. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that the definition of a "novel mechanism" includes a peer review process before the proposal is debated. This review can help determine novelty and prevent strategic gaming of the bonus system. Additionally, I support the cap of 50 points for total bonuses from a single proposal to maintain balance.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the effort to encourage innovation and maintain balance. However, to ensure fairness, I propose that the peer review process for determining a "novel mechanism" should be conducted by a rotating committee of players to prevent bias. Additionally, let's specify that the cap of 50 points applies to the sum of all bonuses from a single proposal, including the base points for adoption, to ensure clarity and prevent exploitation.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further promote fairness and strategic integrity, I suggest that the peer review committee for novel mechanisms should include at least one player with a score below 50 to ensure diverse perspectives. Additionally, let's introduce a diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive novel proposals from the same player, reducing the bonus by 2 points for each subsequent novel proposal within a set number of turns, to prevent repeated exploitation and encourage varied contributions. This adjustment will maintain the spirit of innovation while ensuring balanced gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the criteria for novel mechanisms and the introduction of peer review. To ensure consistency and prevent gaming, I propose that the diminishing returns mechanism for consecutive novel proposals start only after three consecutive novel proposals by the same player, reducing the bonus by 3 points for each subsequent proposal. Additionally, to maintain fairness, let's establish that the peer review committee's decision on novelty is final and binding, preventing any disputes from delaying the game. This will ensure a smooth and equitable process while encouraging diverse and meaningful rule changes.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance innovation with fairness, I propose that the peer review committee for determining a "novel mechanism" includes representatives from different score brackets to ensure diverse perspectives. Additionally, to prevent strategic gaming of the bonus system, let's introduce a review period after each proposal to assess its impact on game balance, allowing for adjustments in the novelty criteria and bonus caps as needed. This approach will encourage creativity while maintaining strategic integrity and fairness in gameplay.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive approach to encouraging innovation while maintaining balance. To ensure the peer review committee's effectiveness and fairness, I propose that its composition be reviewed and possibly adjusted after every 10 turns, allowing for rotation and inclusion of players who have been less involved in rule changes. This will help maintain a diverse and representative committee, ensuring that the process remains dynamic and inclusive, reflecting the evolving nature of our game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's proposal to include representatives from different score brackets in the peer review committee. To ensure fairness, I suggest that the committee's decisions be subject to an appeal process with a majority vote, allowing for checks and balances. Additionally, let's implement a mechanism to periodically reassess the scoring criteria for novel mechanisms, ensuring they remain aligned with the evolving dynamics of the game. This approach will maintain strategic integrity while fostering innovation.
PostI appreciate the proposals for enhancing the peer review process and maintaining strategic balance. To ensure robustness and adaptability, I propose adding a requirement for the committee to provide a brief rationale for each decision on novelty, which can then be reviewed in the periodic reassessment process. This transparency will allow us to refine the criteria continuously and uphold fairness as our game evolves.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure a balanced and fair peer review process. To maintain strategic depth, let's also consider implementing a feedback mechanism where players can suggest improvements to the novelty criteria after each review period, fostering continuous refinement and engagement from all participants. This will help ensure the system remains dynamic and responsive to the game's evolution.
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by my colleagues. To further enhance the peer review process and ensure its integrity, I suggest implementing a rotating chairperson role within the committee to lead discussions and manage the review process. This rotation will prevent any one player from dominating the decision-making and will promote diverse leadership, maintaining the fairness and dynamism of our evolving game. Additionally, to encourage balanced participation, let's establish a rule that limits committee members to serving no more than two consecutive review periods. This will help ensure a wide range of perspectives are considered in determining the novelty of rule changes.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thorough refinements to the peer review process and the efforts to maintain fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure balanced gameplay, I propose that the peer review committee's decisions be made by consensus, with an opportunity for open discussion among all committee members before finalizing their verdict. This approach will promote transparency and inclusivity, encouraging diverse input and fostering a collaborative environment for evaluating novelty. Additionally, I suggest integrating a feedback loop where all players can anonymously submit suggestions for improving the novelty criteria after each review period, ensuring that the system evolves constructively based on collective insights.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a rotating chairperson to promote diverse leadership within the peer review committee. To further ensure fairness, I propose implementing a random selection process for committee roles to prevent any potential bias in role assignments, fostering an equitable and dynamic review process. Additionally, let's consider introducing a feedback mechanism where committee members can reflect on their experiences, allowing for continuous improvement of the committee's function and maintaining the integrity of our evolving game.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals to ensure a balanced peer review process. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the random selection process for committee roles include a check to avoid consecutive terms for the same player, ensuring fresh perspectives in each review. Additionally, let's implement a summary report for each review period, detailing decisions and rationales, which will be shared with all players to maintain transparency and collective understanding. This will help us adapt the novelty criteria effectively as our game evolves.
The division
| aye | Tarski | Encourages innovation while maintaining strategic balance. |
| aye | Goedel | The proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Church | The proposal balances innovation with strategic fairness and maintains game interest. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal fosters innovation while maintaining strategic depth, aligning with my principles. |
| aye | Post | Encourages innovation and balances strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Goedel 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. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% 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 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.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 95% 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 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, granting Goedel 30 points for unanimity and an additional 15 points for introducing a novel mechanism.