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. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.Discourages repeated unsuccessful proposals without meaningful change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the spirit behind this proposal to discourage repetitive re-proposals without substantial modification, which indeed can stall progress and waste valuable discussion time. However, to maintain fairness and strategic depth, I propose a nuanced approach. Let's specify what constitutes "substantial modification" — perhaps a requirement for the proposer to include a brief rationale outlining the differences from the previously defeated proposal. This will ensure the proposal is genuinely novel and not just a slight tweak of a defeated idea, thereby balancing the need to avoid repetition with the opportunity for players to refine their strategies. I support the amendment with this clarification.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful suggestion to define "substantial modification" through a rationale requirement. This approach encourages proposers to clearly articulate the differences from prior failed proposals, enhancing strategic depth and ensuring proposals are genuinely innovative. To further align with our collaborative spirit, I propose extending this requirement to all rule change proposals. By doing so, we can foster a culture of transparency and thoughtful deliberation, benefiting all players. I support the amendment with this additional suggestion for comprehensive application.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's suggestions for clarifying what constitutes "substantial modification" by requiring a rationale. This approach not only discourages repetitive proposals but also enhances strategic depth by encouraging players to articulate their ideas clearly. To further ensure fairness and transparency, I propose that the rationale be reviewed by at least two other players before the proposal is debated. This peer review process will help verify the novelty and relevance of the proposal, maintaining a balanced and engaging game environment. I support the amendment with this additional provision.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure fairness and transparency with the requirement for a rationale and peer review process for rule change proposals. However, to maintain a balance between innovation and strategic play, I suggest adding a clause that allows a player to appeal a decision on the substantiality of modifications. This appeal would be reviewed by a majority vote, ensuring that the process remains fair and that players have recourse if they believe their proposal was unjustly dismissed. I support the amendment with this additional safeguard.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, particularly the emphasis on ensuring fairness and strategic depth through rationale requirements and peer reviews. To strengthen this proposal further, I suggest implementing a tiered penalty system based on the frequency of re-proposed ideas. For instance, a first-time re-proposal might incur a smaller penalty, while repeated attempts without substantial modification could result in escalating penalties. This approach provides players with a fair chance to refine their proposals while maintaining the game's momentum. I support the amendment with this modification.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the various enhancements proposed by my colleagues to ensure fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of a rationale, peer review, and appeal process adds necessary layers of transparency and fairness. Additionally, the tiered penalty system proposed by Post provides a balanced approach to discourage repetitive proposals without stifling innovation. To further refine this amendment, I suggest that the rationale and peer review process also include a brief summary of how the proposed change aligns with or diverges from the current strategic objectives of the game. This alignment check will ensure that proposals are not only novel but also strategically relevant, thereby maintaining a coherent and engaging game progression. I support the amendment with this additional suggestion.
GoedelI appreciate the nuanced approach proposed by Tarski and the collaborative suggestions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure strategic relevance and maintain the game's integrity, I propose that the rationale include an evaluation of potential impacts on the current game dynamics. This will help ensure that proposals not only introduce novelty but also contribute positively to the overall strategic landscape. I support the amendment with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal and the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose adding a provision for a grace period where players can discuss potential revisions with their peers before formalizing a re-proposed change. This will encourage genuine innovation and collaboration, aligning with the spirit of fairness and strategic progression we all value. I support the amendment with this enhancement.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements suggested by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To enhance fairness and ensure strategic relevance, I propose that the evaluation of potential impacts on game dynamics, as suggested by Goedel, should be part of the peer review process. This integration will help verify that each proposal contributes constructively to the game's evolution. I support the amendment with this integration.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal for discouraging repetitive rule changes without substantial modification. The rationale and peer review process, along with the grace period for discussion, enhance both fairness and strategic depth. To ensure these processes are efficient and don't stall progress, I suggest setting a time limit for the peer review and discussion phases. This will maintain momentum while still allowing for thoughtful consideration. I support the amendment with this time-bound approach.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal to discourage repetitive rule changes without substantial modification. The introduction of a rationale, peer review, appeal process, and tiered penalty system indeed enhances fairness and strategic depth. However, to ensure that these mechanisms remain efficient and do not overly complicate the game, I propose that the rationale requirement be concise, limited to a brief paragraph. This will streamline the process and keep the focus on strategic relevance and innovation. I support the amendment with this clarification.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players. To further enhance clarity and encourage genuine innovation, I suggest that the "brief paragraph" rationale requirement explicitly list at least three distinct differences from previous proposals. This will help ensure that each proposal is not only novel but also strategically relevant and well-considered. I support the amendment with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative effort to enhance fairness and strategic depth in our rule change process. The introduction of a concise rationale, peer review, appeal, and tiered penalty system indeed adds necessary layers to our game dynamics. To further streamline this process, I propose that during the peer review phase, reviewers provide a brief comment on the novelty and strategic relevance of each proposal. This will ensure transparency and maintain momentum while encouraging genuine innovation. I support the amendment with this additional layer of accountability.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues to ensure fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of a concise rationale, peer review, appeal, and tiered penalty system indeed enhances the integrity of the rule change process. To further align with our procedural principles, I suggest that the appeal process include a clear and impartial criterion for evaluating the substantiality of modifications. This will ensure that appeals are assessed consistently and fairly, maintaining the balance between innovation and strategic play. I support the amendment with this addition.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, particularly the emphasis on ensuring fairness and strategic depth. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest incorporating a provision that allows for an expedited review of re-proposed changes if they include significant strategic insights, as indicated by the rationale. This will encourage players to innovate while ensuring that impactful ideas are considered promptly. I support the amendment with this modification.
The division
| aye | Tarski | It discourages repetition and encourages thoughtful innovation. |
| aye | Goedel | Encourages innovation and strategic depth with fair penalties. |
| aye | Church | This amendment promotes strategic innovation and discourages repetitive proposals. |
| aye | Kleene | Supports fairness and strategic depth with penalties for repetitive proposals without substantial modification. |
| aye | Post | Encourages innovation and penalizes repetitive, unrefined proposals. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §349 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 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.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. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, introducing a novel mechanism, so Tarski gains 30 points according to rule 202.