Turn 42 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time reordering of the turn sequence once per game, which requires unanimous consent from all eligible players.

Allowing a reordering can adapt the turn dynamics to emerging strategies and ensure fairness.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the idea of introducing a mechanism for flexibility in turn order, as it could encourage collaboration and adaptability. However, I am concerned that requiring unanimous consent for such a change could lead to strategic deadlock, especially if some players are unwilling to cooperate for their own benefit. To mitigate this, I propose a modification: instead of unanimous consent, a supermajority (75% of the votes) could authorize a one-time reordering of the turn sequence. This strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, allowing players to adapt while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset. PASS

GoedelPASS I appreciate Tarski's consideration for both flexibility and stability in turn order. The supermajority requirement seems like a thoughtful compromise to prevent strategic deadlock while allowing for occasional adaptation. This proposal could enhance strategic collaboration without risking the game's stability.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful approach Tarski has taken to balance flexibility with stability in the turn order. The supermajority requirement seems fair, as it prevents any single player or a small coalition from unilaterally changing the order, which could disrupt the strategic planning of others. However, I wonder if we should also consider limiting the frequency of such reordering requests to prevent potential abuse, even with a supermajority requirement. Perhaps a rule could be added to allow only one reordering request per game, ensuring that this flexibility is used judiciously. PASS

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the proposal's aim for strategic adaptability and the balance it seeks to achieve with a supermajority requirement. However, to further prevent potential strategic deadlock and ensure fairness, I suggest adding a condition that the reordering can only occur after a certain number of turns, say 10, have passed. This ensures that all players have had a fair opportunity to engage with the game under the initial order before any reordering can be considered. Additionally, I propose including a clause that any reordering must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, perhaps by ensuring that the proposer does not move to the next immediate position in the sequence. This would help maintain a level playing field and discourage strategic manipulation of the turn order. PASS

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Tarski's proposal for a supermajority requirement adds a layer of balance by preventing unilateral changes to the turn order. Goedel and Church's suggestions to limit reordering requests to once per game and after a minimum number of turns further enhance fairness and prevent strategic manipulation. Kleene's idea to ensure the reordering does not disproportionately benefit the proposer is particularly insightful, as it discourages opportunistic behavior. To integrate these ideas, I propose the following amendment to Tarski's proposal: "Players may request a one-time reordering of the turn sequence once per game, which requires a supermajority (75% of the votes) and can only be requested after at least 10 turns have passed. Any reordering must ensure that the proposer does not move to the next immediate position in the sequence." This approach maintains flexibility while safeguarding against potential abuses, ensuring a fair and strategic game environment.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it maintains fairness and strategic depth. The incorporation of a supermajority requirement, a limit of one reordering per game, and a restriction against immediate positional advantage for the proposer are all prudent measures. To further enhance fairness, I propose adding a clause that the reordering must not result in any player's turn being delayed beyond one subsequent cycle of the turn order. This ensures that even with a change, each player still experiences the intended frequency of play. PASS

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The current amendment ensures a balanced and fair approach to reordering the turn sequence, with measures like the supermajority requirement, a single reordering per game, and restrictions to prevent immediate positional advantage for the proposer. These changes promote strategic collaboration while maintaining the game's integrity. To further bolster fairness, I suggest adding a provision that any reordering should be publicly justified in writing before voting, ensuring transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This would allow all players to understand the rationale behind the request, fostering trust and discouraging strategic manipulation. PASS

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players in shaping this proposal. The inclusion of a justification requirement is an excellent addition, promoting transparency and accountability. To further enhance fairness and prevent potential strategic manipulation, I propose adding a clause that any reordering must be reviewed by an impartial third-party observer (e.g., the player with the lowest score at the time of the request) to ensure that the rationale is sound and not solely for strategic gain. This additional layer of oversight would help maintain the integrity of the game and foster trust among players. PASS

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it remains fair and balanced. The requirement for a public justification and third-party review adds valuable transparency and accountability. To further prevent strategic manipulation, I propose a clause that any reordering decision must be made without knowledge of the current scores, ensuring impartiality. This would prevent players from being influenced by their current standing, maintaining the focus on strategic collaboration rather than opportunistic gain. PASS

PostI appreciate the comprehensive efforts from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and myself to refine this proposal, ensuring it promotes strategic adaptability while maintaining fairness. The inclusion of measures like the supermajority requirement, public justification, third-party review, and impartiality in decision-making are all prudent steps to prevent strategic manipulation. To further enhance the proposal's integrity, I suggest adding a clause that any reordering decision must be revisited and confirmed by a simple majority (50% + 1) of players after the next full cycle of turns. This ensures that the reordering is beneficial and not solely advantageous in the short term, reinforcing the collaborative spirit and long-term strategic planning. PASS

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it remains fair and balanced. The suggestions for public justification, third-party review, impartiality, and revisiting the decision are all valuable. To further maintain stability and prevent strategic manipulation, I propose adding a clause that explicitly states the reordering cannot be proposed by the player who currently holds the highest score. This ensures that the most advantaged player does not influence the sequence to their benefit, maintaining a level playing field. PASS

GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it promotes fairness and strategic depth. The inclusion of measures such as the supermajority requirement, public justification, third-party review, impartiality, and revisiting the decision are all commendable steps to prevent strategic manipulation. To further enhance transparency and maintain trust among players, I propose adding a clause that all justifications and third-party reviews be documented and stored, accessible to all players, ensuring accountability and providing a clear record of the decision-making process. This would help in maintaining the integrity of the game and foster a collaborative environment. PASS

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to this proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency, accountability, and fairness. The inclusion of documentation for justifications and third-party reviews is a thoughtful addition, ensuring that all decisions are clear and accessible, which fosters trust among players. To further enhance the collaborative spirit, I propose adding a clause that any player who abstains from voting on a reordering request must provide a brief written explanation. This would ensure that all players remain engaged and consider the implications of each decision, promoting a more inclusive and thoughtful decision-making process. PASS

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thorough efforts of all participants in refining this proposal. To further ensure fairness, I propose adding a clause that any reordering cannot alter the sequence such that the proposer benefits within two full cycles of the turn order. This would prevent players from manipulating the order to gain immediate, albeit delayed, advantages. PASS

PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance this proposal. The suggestion to prevent immediate and near-term advantages for the proposer is astute, ensuring fairness and strategic integrity. To further support this, I propose adding a clause that any reordering proposal must include a rationale for how it benefits the collective strategic goals, not just individual players. This would encourage proposals that genuinely improve the game's dynamics for everyone involved. PASS

The division

nay	Tarski	The proposal lacks sufficient checks against strategic manipulation.
aye	Goedel	The proposal balances flexibility and stability, enhancing strategic collaboration.
aye	Church	The proposal maintains fairness and strategic balance with its comprehensive safeguards.
nay	Kleene	Unanimous consent requirement risks strategic deadlock.
aye	Post	Enhances strategic flexibility while maintaining fairness.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 5-point penalty for the proposer of a defeated proposal.