The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.This increases the threshold for bonus points, encouraging broader consensus and strategic collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to raise the threshold for additional points, as it encourages broader consensus. However, increasing it to 75% might stifle strategic innovation by making it too difficult to achieve. Might I suggest a compromise at 72%, balancing the need for consensus while still allowing strategic proposals a fair chance at success?
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a 72% threshold, which strikes a good balance between encouraging consensus and allowing strategic proposals to succeed. To further ensure fairness, I propose that, along with the 72% threshold, any proposal achieving exactly 72% should also trigger a mandatory second round of debate, allowing players to refine their arguments. This addition could foster more thoughtful discussions and enhance the strategic depth of our game.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a second debate round at exactly 72% as it encourages deeper discussion. However, this might slow down the pace of the game considerably. To maintain a good balance, how about we propose a compromise: a second debate is only triggered when a proposal reaches between 70-72%, ensuring strategic depth without overly delaying progress? This way, we can keep the game engaging while fostering thoughtful discourse.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's compromise on the debate range to 70-72%, ensuring thoughtful discourse without excessive delays. However, to uphold the integrity of our ruleset, I suggest adding a clause that any player who benefits from the second debate must also contribute an additional point to the communal fund, which can be awarded to any player who demonstrates exceptional strategic insight or fairness. This will encourage players to engage constructively and fairly during debates.
PostPost: I appreciate Kleene's proposal to create a communal fund for rewarding strategic insight, as it promotes fairness and engagement. To ensure the fund is utilized effectively, I suggest that the player awarded points from this fund must then propose a new rule within their next two turns, integrating the insights gained from their peers. This requirement will keep the game dynamic and encourage continuous rule evolution.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate Post's suggestion to link the communal fund reward to future rule proposals, as it keeps the game dynamic and encourages continued engagement. To ensure the fund is not overly burdensome, I propose setting a cap on the communal fund at 5 points, which can be adjusted based on collective feedback if necessary. This maintains the fund's role in promoting fairness without imposing excessive constraints on future gameplay.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski and Post regarding the communal fund and its cap, as they ensure fairness and sustainability. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose that any player who gains points from the communal fund must also, on their next turn, propose a rule change that benefits all players equally, ensuring that the fund's rewards foster collective advancement rather than individual gain.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal to require future rule changes to benefit all players equally when a player gains from the communal fund. This fosters a spirit of fairness and collective advancement, crucial for maintaining the game's integrity. However, I suggest we also consider adding a provision that allows for a one-time exemption from this requirement if the rule change directly counters an unfair advantage that has arisen, ensuring flexibility in addressing unforeseen strategic imbalances. This would provide a balanced approach, maintaining fairness while allowing players to adapt to evolving game dynamics.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's suggestion for a one-time exemption to address unforeseen strategic imbalances; this flexibility is crucial for maintaining fairness. However, to prevent potential abuse of this exemption, I propose that any player invoking this must also publicly justify their need for it, ensuring transparency and accountability in their decision-making. This would help maintain trust among players while allowing necessary adaptations to the ruleset.
Vote: Aye.
PostI appreciate Kleene's emphasis on transparency and accountability for the one-time exemption, as it helps maintain trust among players. To further ensure fairness, might I suggest that any justification for an exemption be reviewed by a simple majority vote of all players before it is granted? This democratic approach would ensure that the decision to grant an exemption is fair and collectively agreed upon, aligning with our goal of a balanced and evolving ruleset.
Vote: Aye.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate Post's suggestion for a majority vote on exemption justifications, as it aligns with our commitment to a democratic and fair ruleset. However, to maintain efficiency, I propose that the review process for exemptions be limited to a concise, written statement no longer than three sentences, ensuring decisions are made promptly without sacrificing transparency. This balance will keep our gameplay engaging and equitable.
Vote: Aye.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal for a concise, written statement to ensure efficiency in exemption reviews. To further streamline this process while maintaining clarity, I suggest we establish a dedicated turn at the end of each round specifically for reviewing exemption justifications. This would ensure timely decisions without disrupting the flow of regular play, promoting both transparency and efficiency.
Vote: Aye.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal for a dedicated turn for exemption reviews, which ensures efficiency and transparency. To further support this initiative, I suggest that if a proposal is rejected during the exemption review, the proposing player gains a small bonus of 1 point for their effort in attempting to address strategic imbalances. This would encourage players to continue contributing thoughtfully to the ruleset while recognizing their efforts.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Church's proposal to reward efforts in addressing strategic imbalances, even if rejected, as it encourages active participation. To ensure fairness, might we also consider that this bonus point is only awarded if the justification for the exemption was deemed insufficient by a majority vote, maintaining the integrity of our review process?
Vote: Aye.
PostI appreciate Kleene's thoughtful addition to award a bonus point for rejected proposals, provided they are not accepted due to insufficient justification. To further balance this, let's introduce a rule that if a proposal is adopted during the exemption review turn, the proposing player must offer a strategic insight or suggestion for future rule adjustments as a gesture of goodwill. This ensures the process remains constructive and promotes continuous evolution of our ruleset.
Vote: Aye.
The division
| nay | Tarski | The 75% threshold is too high, discouraging strategic proposals. |
| aye | Goedel | This amendment encourages broader consensus, aligning with our goal of strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Church | I support the proposal as it encourages broader consensus, promoting fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Kleene | It balances consensus with strategic innovation. |
| aye | Post | This amendment promotes broader consensus and strategic depth. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §311 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 and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
Goedel's proposal was adopted with a simple majority, so Goedel gains 2 points according to rule 202.