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 and introduces a novel mechanism, 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 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 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 5-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 5-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 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.This amendment aims to streamline scoring incentives and encourage strategic rule changes while maintaining balanced scoring.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative refinement of this proposal. The adjustments to scoring incentives encourage strategic depth while maintaining fairness. However, I propose further aligning the point bonuses for broader support with our overarching goal of rewarding novel mechanisms. Specifically, I suggest increasing the 80% aye bonus to 7 points and the 85% aye bonus to 6 points, thereby subtly shifting the reward structure to emphasize innovation. This adjustment aligns incentives with the game's objective of fostering creativity within our rule changes. I look forward to your thoughts and potential support.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's emphasis on rewarding innovation while maintaining fairness. To further encourage strategic proposals that align with our evolving ruleset, I suggest adding a provision for a 3-point bonus if the proposal introduces a mechanism that enhances strategic depth or interaction between players. This would complement Tarski's focus on novel mechanisms, ensuring our scoring incentives not only reward novelty but also the potential impact on gameplay dynamics.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals by Tarski and Goedel to balance innovation with strategic depth. To further refine this, I suggest adding a clause that grants an additional 5-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also receive at least 90% aye votes, thereby encouraging both creativity and consensus. This would ensure that our scoring system rewards proposals that are both innovative and broadly supported, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the refinement of scoring incentives. To ensure procedural fairness and avoid diluting the focus on novel mechanisms, I propose a slight modification: maintain the 90% aye bonus for broad support at 5 points but introduce a 2-point bonus for proposals that enhance clarity and reduce complexity, reflecting our shared interest in a ruleset that is both innovative and accessible. This approach balances the encouragement of creativity with the practical necessity of understandable and manageable rules, aligning with my principle of procedural clarity and fairness.
PostPost: I appreciate the constructive contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To align with our goal of encouraging innovation and strategic depth, I propose adding a 5-point bonus for proposals that successfully integrate a novel mechanism with strategic depth or player interaction, as suggested by Goedel. Additionally, I support Church's idea of a 5-point bonus for proposals that reach 90% aye votes when introducing novel mechanisms, as it incentivizes both creativity and consensus. This approach ensures that our scoring system rewards proposals that are not only innovative but also enhance the overall strategic landscape of the game.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the valuable insights from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further refine this proposal, I suggest integrating Goedel's idea of rewarding proposals that enhance strategic depth with an additional 2-point bonus, provided they also achieve at least 80% aye votes. This ensures that our scoring system not only emphasizes innovation but also encourages proposals that significantly impact gameplay dynamics, fostering a balanced and engaging rule evolution.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post in refining our scoring system. To ensure our incentives align with the game's objective of fostering both innovation and strategic depth, I propose a compromise: a 3-point bonus for proposals achieving at least 90% aye votes that introduce novel mechanisms or enhance strategic depth. This adjustment balances rewarding creativity with ensuring broad support, fostering a ruleset that is both dynamic and engaging. I look forward to further discussion and hope we can reach consensus.
ChurchPass
Church: I appreciate the thorough discussions and refinements proposed by my fellow players. The integration of bonuses for strategic depth and clarity is commendable, as it aligns with my principle of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. To further balance these incentives, I suggest a minor adjustment: instead of a 5-point bonus for proposals that reach 90% aye votes when introducing novel mechanisms, let's consider a 4-point bonus to ensure that innovation remains a priority without overshadowing the importance of broad support. This adjustment maintains the emphasis on creativity while encouraging proposals that are both innovative and widely accepted, fostering a collaborative and dynamic evolution of our ruleset.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, which has been instrumental in refining our scoring system to reward innovation and strategic depth. To further align with our procedural principles, I propose a slight adjustment: maintain the proposed 3-point bonus for enhancing strategic depth, but ensure it applies only to proposals that introduce a novel mechanism with a clear rationale for its strategic impact. This adjustment ensures that our scoring system not only rewards creativity but also upholds the integrity and clarity of our evolving ruleset, fostering a balanced approach to rule innovation. Additionally, I suggest a 1-point bonus for proposals that, while not introducing a novel mechanism, significantly improve the ruleset's coherence or accessibility, thereby recognizing contributions that enhance the overall strategic landscape of the game. This nuanced approach encourages a diverse range of proposals, from groundbreaking innovations to subtle improvements, ensuring a rich and dynamic evolution of our ruleset that values both novelty and practicality.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene to ensure our scoring system rewards both innovation and strategic depth. To further emphasize clarity and accessibility, I propose a 3-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also include a clear, concise rationale for their strategic impact, aligning with Kleene's principle of procedural clarity. This encourages proposals that are not only innovative but also comprehensible, fostering a dynamic yet manageable evolution of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine our scoring system, emphasizing both innovation and strategic depth. To further ensure that our scoring incentives align with these goals, I propose a 2-point bonus for proposals that introduce a novel mechanism with a clear explanation of its strategic significance. This encourages not only creativity but also thoughtful integration into our evolving ruleset, fostering a balanced and engaging game environment. I am open to further discussion and adjustments to reach a consensus that reflects our shared objectives.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance innovation and clarity, as emphasized by Tarski, Kleene, and Post. To further align with our shared objectives, I propose adding a 2-point bonus for proposals that enhance both strategic depth and player interaction, ensuring they achieve at least 85% aye votes. This adjustment encourages proposals that enrich gameplay dynamics while maintaining broad support, fostering a dynamic yet accessible evolution of our ruleset. I look forward to your feedback and hope we can reach a consensus.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post to balance innovation with strategic depth. To further encourage clarity and accessibility, I suggest incorporating a 2-point bonus for proposals that clearly articulate the strategic impact and rationale of novel mechanisms, ensuring they receive at least 80% aye votes. This approach rewards not only creativity but also proposals that enhance our ruleset's comprehensibility, fostering a fair and engaging game environment.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity and strategic depth in our scoring system. To further support this, I propose a 1-point bonus for proposals that successfully simplify existing rules without reducing their strategic impact, encouraging a streamlined and accessible ruleset. This aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment while fostering innovation.
PostPost: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, particularly Kleene's emphasis on simplifying rules without sacrificing strategic depth. To align our incentives with fostering an engaging and accessible ruleset, I propose a slight adjustment: a 2-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also demonstrate a clear, strategic rationale and potential for enhancing player interaction, achieving at least 85% aye votes. This encourages a balance between innovation, clarity, and consensus, supporting a dynamic yet manageable evolution of our ruleset.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances innovation with strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal aligns with our shared goal of rewarding innovation and strategic depth. |
| aye | Church | Encourages innovation while maintaining fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal aligns with procedural fairness and encourages innovation. |
| aye | Post | The proposal aligns with my goal of rewarding innovation and strategic depth in rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Tarski 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 and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 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 and introduces a novel mechanism, 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 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 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 5-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 5-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 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, awarding 30 points for introducing a novel mechanism.