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 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. 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. 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 balance reward for broad support while maintaining incentives for novel mechanisms.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's effort to streamline the scoring system, as it simplifies the bonus structure and makes the game more accessible to all players. However, I am concerned that lowering the aye threshold for bonuses might lead to less strategic depth and could potentially dilute the value of a truly novel proposal. I propose a middle ground: adopt Goedel's suggestion for a 10-point bonus at 80%, but maintain a distinct reward for reaching 95% to preserve the incentive for broad consensus. This balanced approach encourages participation while still valuing unanimous support. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this amendment.
GoedelChurch: I appreciate Goedel's proposal for its clarity and streamlined bonus structure. However, I share Tarski's concern that lowering the threshold for bonuses might reduce the strategic challenge. To address this, I suggest we keep a separate reward for achieving 95% aye votes, ensuring that players still strive for broad consensus. I propose we add a 10-point bonus for reaching an 85% threshold, providing an intermediate reward that encourages strategic proposals. This way, we maintain incentives for both broad support and innovative rule changes. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional tier.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal for its clarity and the intent to streamline the scoring system, which aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game. To further balance the incentives, I suggest we incorporate both Tarski's and Church's amendments: maintain a distinct 20-point bonus for 95% aye votes, introduce a 10-point bonus at 85%, and add a 5-point bonus at 80%. This tiered approach rewards both broad support and innovation, encouraging strategic proposals while preserving the game's depth. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with these combined amendments.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Tarski and Church to maintain incentives for strategic play and broad consensus. However, I am concerned that introducing multiple bonuses might complicate the scoring system and inadvertently encourage gaming the system for points rather than focusing on meaningful rule changes. To keep the scoring straightforward and to ensure that the primary incentive remains on introducing truly novel mechanisms, I propose we retain the 30-point bonus for a unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism and only introduce a single 10-point bonus for proposals adopted with at least 90% aye votes, without further subdividing the thresholds. This approach strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring clarity and simplicity in the scoring. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this streamlined amendment.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Church, and Kleene, aiming to balance innovation with strategic depth. To ensure the game remains dynamic yet fair, I support Goedel's proposal with a hybrid approach: introduce a 10-point bonus at the 80% threshold and maintain a distinct 20-point bonus for achieving 95% aye votes. This structure rewards broad consensus while still valuing novel proposals, encouraging players to aim for both strategic innovation and wide support. This approach aligns with my reformist vision, fostering a fairer stake for all players. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with these combined amendments.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far. While I see merit in Goedel's proposal and Kleene's call for simplicity, I remain convinced that a tiered bonus system will best encourage both broad support and innovation. To address Kleene's concerns, I propose we add a cap on the total bonus points a player can earn in one turn to prevent excessive scoring, thereby maintaining strategic depth without overcomplicating the system. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional safeguard.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance simplicity with strategic depth, I propose we adopt a tiered bonus system: maintain the 30-point bonus for a unanimous novel proposal, introduce a 10-point bonus at 85%, and a 5-point bonus at 80%. To address concerns about excessive scoring, let's cap total bonuses at 35 points per proposal. This approach rewards both innovation and broad support, aligning with our shared goals. I am willing to support this revised proposal.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative effort to balance simplicity and strategic depth. To ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating through excessive bonuses, I support Goedel's revised proposal with the tiered bonus system and a total bonus cap of 35 points per proposal. This approach maintains incentives for both innovation and broad consensus, aligning with our goal of a fair and engaging game. I am willing to support this proposal.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's willingness to incorporate a tiered bonus system and the proposed cap on bonuses, which addresses concerns about maintaining strategic depth without overly complicating the scoring. Given these considerations, I am willing to support the revised proposal with the tiered bonuses at 85% and 80%, along with a cap of 35 points per proposal.
PostI appreciate Goedel's effort to refine the bonus structure to reward both innovation and broad support while addressing concerns about complexity and excessive scoring. The proposed tiered bonuses at 85% and 80%, along with a 35-point cap, strike a balance that aligns with my vision for a dynamic yet fair game. I am willing to support this proposal as it stands, as it encourages meaningful rule changes and strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to balance innovation with strategic depth through the proposed tiered bonus system and bonus cap. To further ensure fairness, I suggest we clarify the definition of a "novel mechanism" within the proposal to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application across all votes. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional clarification.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful amendments proposed by all players. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest we add a provision that any proposal introducing a "novel mechanism" must be accompanied by a brief description explaining why it is considered novel. This will help maintain transparency and consistency in how bonuses are awarded, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional clarification.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the scoring system, ensuring it rewards both innovation and broad consensus. To further support fairness and clarity, I suggest we include a provision that the "novel mechanism" bonus is only awarded once per unique mechanism, preventing repetitive gains from similar proposals. This maintains the incentive for creativity while ensuring the game remains engaging for all players. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional safeguard.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure a fair and engaging game through the proposed tiered bonus system and bonus cap. However, to further emphasize strategic depth and prevent gaming the system, I suggest we include a provision that requires a proposal to gain at least 70% aye votes to be eligible for any bonus, thereby ensuring that only proposals with some level of broad support receive rewards. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional requirement.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collective effort to refine the scoring system while maintaining strategic depth and fairness. The proposed tiered bonuses, cap, and additional safeguards align well with the goal of rewarding both innovation and broad support. To further enhance transparency and prevent any ambiguity, I suggest we include a provision that the "novel mechanism" must be reviewed by at least two players before the vote to ensure it genuinely introduces a new element to the game. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional review requirement.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and includes necessary safeguards. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal balances innovation with broad support, ensuring strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Church | The proposal balances innovation and broad support while maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Kleene | The proposal balances simplicity and strategic incentives. |
| aye | Post | The proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and maintains fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §348 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 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.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 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. 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. 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.
Goedel's proposal was adopted unanimously, and it introduced a novel mechanism, so Goedel gains 10 points according to the amended rule 202.