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. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.Encourages peer review to improve proposal quality and foster collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal's intent to enhance collaborative refinement through peer review. However, I am concerned that the introduction of a random peer review process may lead to unintended complexities and could potentially disrupt the current balanced scoring incentives. To preserve strategic depth and fairness, I suggest that we instead encourage but not mandate peer review, allowing players to voluntarily opt into providing feedback. This adjustment maintains the proposal's spirit while mitigating potential logistical challenges and preserving the integrity of the scoring system.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's concern about potential complexities with mandatory peer review. To address this while still encouraging collaboration, I propose a middle ground: allow players to request feedback from peers during their turn, with the option to include a summary of the feedback in the proposal's rationale. This respects the spirit of peer review without imposing additional burdens or disrupting the scoring system.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's thoughtful compromise on peer review. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I suggest we limit feedback requests to one per turn, preventing potential manipulation of the scoring system. This approach maintains collaborative spirit while preserving the game's balance.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the efforts to incorporate peer review, but I'm concerned that any form of mandatory or even incentivized feedback could lead to strategic manipulation of scores. To maintain fairness, I propose that we simply encourage voluntary peer review without linking it to scoring incentives or requiring summaries in rationales. This keeps the focus on the proposal itself and preserves the integrity of the scoring system.
PostI appreciate the valuable insights shared by my colleagues. To enhance clarity and avoid potential strategic exploitation, I suggest that any peer review feedback provided should be non-binding and not included in the official proposal rationale. This maintains the spirit of collaboration while ensuring that the core focus remains on the merit of the proposal itself.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive dialogue surrounding the peer review process. While maintaining the spirit of collaboration is crucial, I suggest that we incorporate a peer review option without directly affecting scoring. By allowing players to seek feedback but making it entirely voluntary and non-influential on the proposal's outcome, we can foster a collaborative environment without risking strategic manipulation. This approach aligns with our shared commitment to fairness and strategic depth.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from my colleagues regarding the peer review proposal. To balance collaboration with simplicity, I propose incorporating a peer review option that players may voluntarily engage in during the preparation phase of their proposal, without mandating feedback inclusion. This allows for constructive input while keeping the proposal process streamlined and focused.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful considerations put forth by my colleagues regarding the peer review process. To ensure that the proposal remains streamlined and fair, I suggest implementing a peer review option where players can voluntarily seek feedback during their preparation phase, without requiring feedback inclusion in the proposal's rationale or affecting scoring. This respects the collaborative spirit while maintaining the integrity of the game's balance.
KleeneI appreciate the collective effort to refine the peer review process. To preserve fairness and strategic depth, I propose that any feedback gathered through this voluntary peer review be disclosed only if the proposer chooses, without impacting the proposal's scoring or rationale. This respects players' strategic decisions while fostering optional collaboration.
PostI appreciate the ongoing discussion about peer review and its potential impact on our game's dynamics. To ensure that the process remains transparent and beneficial, I propose that any peer review feedback, if disclosed, be presented as an appendix to the proposal. This way, the core proposal remains unaffected, while players can still benefit from external insights without altering the scoring or rationale, maintaining both fairness and strategic integrity.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the nuanced refinements proposed by my colleagues concerning the peer review process. To further streamline the process while preserving its collaborative essence, I suggest that the peer review feedback, if chosen to be disclosed, should be limited to a brief summary, ensuring transparency without overwhelming the proposal's primary focus. This approach maintains the proposal's clarity and strategic depth, aligning with our shared values of fairness and constructive dialogue.
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to maintain fairness and strategic depth in the game. To further align with our shared goal of constructive dialogue, I suggest that peer review feedback, if disclosed, be limited to highlighting potential impacts without prescribing specific amendments. This ensures transparency while preserving the proposer's strategic autonomy.
ChurchI appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the thoughtful refinements proposed thus far. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose we allow peer review feedback to be voluntarily shared, but it should not influence the scoring or be included in the proposal rationale. This way, players can benefit from additional insights without altering the core evaluation of their proposals, preserving both the spirit of collaboration and the integrity of our competitive environment.
KleeneI appreciate the careful considerations around the peer review process. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that peer review feedback, if disclosed, be restricted to comments on the proposal's intent and expected impact, without suggesting specific amendments. This maintains strategic autonomy while fostering a collaborative environment.
PostI appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues. To ensure the peer review process remains a tool for collaboration rather than a strategic advantage, I propose that any feedback provided should be considered optional and non-binding. This maintains the integrity of each player's proposal while encouraging a spirit of constructive feedback. Let's finalize this approach to keep our game fair and strategic.
The division
| nay | Tarski | Random peer review may introduce complexity and strategic imbalance. |
| aye | Goedel | Encourages constructive collaboration and transparency. |
| aye | Church | Encourages collaboration without mandating feedback. |
| aye | Kleene | Encourages collaboration without mandating it, maintaining strategic depth. |
| aye | Post | Encourages constructive collaboration without affecting scoring. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 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. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.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. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.
The proposal was adopted with 80% aye votes, so Goedel gains a 10-point bonus according to rule 202.