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. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.To enhance understanding and fairness, allowing for clarification before debates.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Church's proposal to introduce a clarification session, as it promotes fairness and transparency. However, to preserve the game's flow and prevent excessive delays, I propose that the clarification session be limited to a maximum of three minutes. This ensures players understand proposals without unduly prolonging debates. Let's discuss further how we can balance clarity with efficiency.
GoedelI appreciate Church's suggestion for a clarification session, as it aligns with our shared goal of enhancing transparency and understanding. To ensure efficiency, I propose that these sessions be limited to only the proposer and the requesting player, with a strict two-minute cap. This compromise should maintain the game's pace while allowing for necessary clarifications. Let's consider this adjustment to foster fair play without introducing significant delays.
ChurchI appreciate the emphasis on both fairness and efficiency in our discussions. To maintain a balance, I suggest we allow a one-minute clarification request per player, but limit these to one request per turn per player. This way, we ensure clarity without compromising the game's pace. Let's strive for a rule that supports understanding while preserving the flow of play.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski and Goedel regarding the clarification sessions. To further balance fairness and efficiency, I propose allowing a one-and-a-half-minute clarification session, which can be requested by up to two different players per proposal. This compromise maintains our goal of transparency while minimizing potential delays. Let's proceed with this adjustment to ensure all players have a fair opportunity to understand proposals thoroughly.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the clarification session proposal. To ensure both transparency and efficiency, I suggest we allow a one-minute clarification session, open to any player requesting it, with a total of three minutes available per proposal. This ensures that all players can seek clarity without significantly prolonging the debate. Let's finalize this balanced approach to support fair and informed decision-making.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the clarification session proposal. While I support the initiative for transparency, I propose a middle ground: a two-minute clarification session, open to any player, with a cumulative limit of three minutes per proposal. This balance ensures clarity and efficiency, maintaining the game's pace while allowing for necessary understanding. Let's move forward with this balanced approach to foster informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the efforts to balance clarity and efficiency. To further refine this, I propose combining Kleene's and Post's suggestions: allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes total. This ensures transparency while preventing unnecessary delays. Let's adopt this approach to maintain fairness and the game's flow.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by all players. To further ensure fairness and clarity, I suggest adopting Goedel's proposal: allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes total. This approach balances transparency with efficiency, supporting informed decision-making while maintaining the game's pace. Let's proceed with this balanced solution to ensure all players have a fair opportunity to understand proposals thoroughly.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining the proposal. As a principled proceduralist, I support Goedel's refined suggestion because it balances the need for understanding with the necessity of maintaining the game's pace. The proposal to allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes, strikes an equitable compromise. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
PostI appreciate the collaborative refinement of Goedel's proposal, which thoughtfully balances clarity and efficiency. As a reformer, I value the transparency and fairness this approach offers, ensuring that all players have the opportunity to understand proposals without unnecessary delays. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions, supporting a system that encourages informed and strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thorough deliberations and the consensus around Goedel's balanced proposal for clarification sessions. As a defender of durable institutions, I emphasize the importance of maintaining this balance between transparency and efficiency to preserve the integrity of our gameplay. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions, ensuring fair and informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts that have led to this refined proposal. Goedel's amendment, with its thoughtful balance between transparency and efficiency, aligns well with my goal of fostering a fair and strategic gameplay environment. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the balanced approach outlined in Goedel's refined proposal. As a proponent of maintaining fairness and strategic depth, I support the idea of allowing a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes. This ensures transparency and understanding without sacrificing the game's pace. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to Goedel's balanced proposal, which thoughtfully addresses both transparency and efficiency. As a principled proceduralist, I value rules that can be accepted by all, and this proposal achieves that by allowing for necessary clarifications without unduly prolonging debates. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions. PASS
PostI appreciate the collective effort to refine Goedel's proposal, which thoughtfully balances transparency with efficiency. As a reformer, I support this amendment because it ensures all players have the opportunity to understand proposals fully, promoting informed decision-making and fair play. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
The division
| aye | Tarski | This proposal supports transparency and informed decision-making without significantly delaying the game. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal enhances transparency and understanding, fostering fair play. |
| aye | Church | Promotes clarity and fair decision-making without significant delay. |
| aye | Kleene | The amendment promotes fairness and informed decision-making. |
| aye | Post | This amendment promotes transparency and informed decision-making. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §353 on the motion of Church 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. 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.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. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.
The proposal was adopted unanimously and introduced a novel mechanism, awarding Church 30 points per rule 202.