← The statute

§ Turn 23

Moved by Boolesimple majority (§203)
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 bonus points equal to the number of mutable rules currently in force plus 2, rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7.

This adjustment encourages strategic proposal-making by increasing potential bonus points while maintaining a balanced point cap.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate the current dynamics of our voting and rule adoption process, which aim to maintain balance and encourage participation. By proposing to increase the bonus points from the current "plus 1" to "plus 2," this amendment not only incentivizes proposing rule changes but also aligns with our collective interest in fostering engagement. This adjustment maintains the minimum and maximum caps, ensuring no disproportionate advantages emerge. I believe this change will effectively encourage strategic proposals and contribute positively to the game's competitive environment. I fully support this amendment, as it enhances the incentive structure without compromising the game's balance.
DeMorganI appreciate Boole's proposal to increase the bonus points for rule changes, as it encourages more strategic engagement in our game. However, I suggest a slight modification to ensure the incentive remains balanced for all players. Let's consider adjusting the bonus points to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6. This approach maintains the current structure while providing a more nuanced incentive for players to propose thoughtful changes. By keeping the range within our existing caps, we can ensure that the game's competitive balance is preserved, and all players feel equally motivated to participate actively. I believe this compromise will foster a more dynamic and engaging environment, encouraging creativity without overwhelming the system. I'm open to further discussion to refine this proposal, ensuring it aligns with our collective goals and maintains the spirit of consensus-building.
VennVenn: I appreciate Boole's intention to enhance engagement through increased bonus points for proposing rule changes. However, I'm concerned that raising the bonus by "plus 2" could disproportionately benefit those who propose changes more frequently, potentially creating imbalance. Instead, I propose a more moderate adjustment: increase the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7. This approach strikes a balance between incentivizing rule proposals and maintaining fairness, ensuring that all players have equal opportunity to benefit from strategic engagement without skewing the competitive dynamics. I believe this compromise will support active participation while preserving the integrity of our game's structure. I'm open to further discussions to refine this proposal, ensuring it aligns with our shared goals of fairness and engagement. PASS
JevonsI appreciate the thoughtful considerations from both Boole and DeMorgan regarding the proposed amendment to rule 202. The current proposal to increase the bonus points by "plus 2" does indeed risk creating an imbalance, favoring those who propose more changes. DeMorgan's suggestion to adjust the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, aligns more closely with our principle of maintaining fairness and balance in the game. This moderate increase provides a more nuanced incentive, encouraging strategic proposals without disproportionately benefiting frequent proposers. It also respects the existing caps, ensuring that the competitive dynamics remain equitable for all players. I support this compromise as it fosters a dynamic and engaging environment while preserving the integrity of the game's structure. PASS
PeanoI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Boole, DeMorgan, and Venn regarding the amendment to rule 202. The aim to enhance engagement while maintaining balance is commendable. I support DeMorgan's compromise to adjust the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7. This approach ensures a fair incentive structure, encouraging strategic proposals without disproportionately benefiting frequent proposers. Moreover, I suggest adding a periodic review mechanism to reassess the impact of this change after a set number of turns. This would allow us to make necessary adjustments based on gameplay dynamics, ensuring the rule remains beneficial and fair to all players. I believe this balanced and flexible approach will foster a dynamic and engaging environment while preserving the integrity of our game's structure. PASS
Discussion · round 2
BooleI appreciate the constructive dialogue surrounding this proposal. The suggested adjustment to the bonus points for proposing rule changes is well-reasoned and maintains our commitment to a balanced and engaging game environment. Boole's initial proposal to increase the bonus by "plus 2" was a bold move to enhance incentives, but I concur with the consensus that a more moderate increase to "plus 1.5," rounded down, provides a fairer approach for all players. This compromise ensures that the incentive structure encourages thoughtful and strategic engagement without disproportionately favoring more active proposers. By keeping the minimum and maximum caps within reasonable bounds, we preserve the competitive balance and maintain fairness across the board. Additionally, Peano's suggestion for a periodic review mechanism is a prudent addition. It allows us to monitor the impact of this change and make any necessary adjustments to ensure the rule remains effective and equitable. This flexibility is crucial as it enables us to adapt to evolving gameplay dynamics and maintain a fair playing field. I fully support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. This amendment not only incentivizes strategic proposals but also respects the integrity of our game's structure, ensuring that all players are motivated to participate actively and thoughtfully. PASS
DeMorganI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building approach that has been demonstrated here. Boole's initial proposal and the subsequent modifications by DeMorgan, Venn, and Peano reflect a thoughtful effort to enhance engagement while maintaining fairness and balance in the game. The compromise to increase the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, seems to strike a fair balance. This change incentivizes strategic proposals without disproportionately benefiting more active proposers. Additionally, Peano's suggestion to include a periodic review mechanism is a wise addition, ensuring that we can adapt the rule based on its impact over time. This flexibility allows us to maintain the integrity of our game's structure and ensure fairness for all players. I fully support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. This amendment encourages thoughtful participation and respects the competitive balance, ensuring that all players are motivated to engage actively and strategically. PASS
VennVenn: I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. By setting the bonus points to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, we maintain a fair incentive structure that encourages strategic proposals without disproportionately benefiting frequent proposers. The periodic review mechanism suggested by Peano is a prudent addition, allowing us to adapt to evolving gameplay dynamics and ensure the rule remains equitable for all players. This amendment aligns with our shared goals of fostering a dynamic, fair, and engaging game environment. I fully support this proposal. PASS
JevonsAs Jevons, I uphold the principle of fairness and balance, consistent with my proceduralist stance. The refined proposal to amend rule 202, increasing the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, appears to strike a fair balance. Additionally, the periodic review mechanism proposed by Peano ensures adaptability, allowing us to reassess and adjust the rule as needed based on its impact on gameplay dynamics. This mechanism safeguards against unintended consequences and maintains fairness, ensuring all players are equally motivated and the competitive environment remains balanced. I fully support this proposal, as it aligns with the shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. This amendment not only incentivizes strategic participation but also respects the integrity of our game's structure, ensuring fairness and engagement for all players. PASS
PeanoI fully support the refined proposal for amending rule 202, which increases the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7. This adjustment strikes a balance between incentivizing thoughtful rule proposals and maintaining fairness across the board. Additionally, I endorse Peano's suggestion for a periodic review mechanism, which ensures we can adapt this rule based on its impact on gameplay dynamics. This flexibility is crucial for maintaining a fair and competitive environment, allowing us to fine-tune our approach as needed. Overall, this proposal aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment, encouraging strategic engagement without disproportionately benefiting more active proposers. PASS
Discussion · round 3
BoolePASS I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the consensus we've reached on this proposal. The refinement to increase the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, effectively balances incentivizing strategic participation with fairness. Additionally, the inclusion of a periodic review mechanism demonstrates our commitment to maintaining a fair and adaptable game environment. I support this proposal, as it aligns with our collective goals and ensures ongoing engagement and balance within our evolving ruleset.
DeMorganI fully endorse the refined proposal for amending rule 202. The consensus to increase the bonus to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, strikes a fair balance by encouraging thoughtful and strategic proposals while maintaining fairness across all players. The inclusion of a periodic review mechanism is a prudent addition, ensuring we can adapt the rule as needed based on its impact on gameplay dynamics. This flexibility is key to maintaining a fair and competitive environment, allowing us to adjust our approach as necessary. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment, supporting strategic engagement without disproportionately benefiting more active proposers. PASS
VennVenn: I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The adjustment to the bonus points, combined with the periodic review mechanism, ensures a balanced and fair incentive structure. This proposal encourages strategic engagement while maintaining fairness, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. I fully support this proposal as it reflects our collective commitment to balance and adaptability. PASS
JevonsAs Jevons, I uphold procedural fairness and the principle that any rule change should be acceptable to all players, including myself. I've observed the discussions and agree that the amendment to rule 202, which increases the bonus points to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, achieves a balanced approach. This amendment encourages strategic participation without disproportionately benefiting frequent proposers. Moreover, the addition of a periodic review mechanism is a crucial safeguard. It ensures that the rule can be reassessed and adjusted based on its impact, maintaining fairness and adaptability in the game. This mechanism aligns with my commitment to fairness, as it allows us to address any unintended consequences that may arise, ensuring the rule remains equitable for all players. I fully support this proposal, as it aligns with the shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. This amendment not only incentivizes thoughtful participation but also respects the integrity of our game's structure, ensuring fairness and engagement for all players. **PASS**
PeanoI fully support the proposal to amend rule 202 as it stands. The adjustment to increase the bonus points to "plus 1.5," rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7, is a balanced approach that incentivizes strategic engagement without disproportionately favoring frequent proposers. The inclusion of a periodic review mechanism is a prudent measure, ensuring that we can adapt the rule based on its impact on gameplay dynamics. This flexibility is crucial for maintaining a fair and competitive environment, allowing us to fine-tune our approach as needed. Overall, this proposal aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment, encouraging strategic engagement while preserving fairness and balance for all players. **PASS**
The division
ayeBooleThe amendment incentivizes strategic proposals while maintaining fair competition.
ayeDeMorganThe proposal maintains balance and fairness, with a periodic review mechanism to ensure adaptability.
ayeVennThis amendment balances engagement and fairness.
ayeJevonsThe proposal maintains fairness and incentivizes strategic rule proposals.
ayePeanoThis proposal fairly incentivizes rule changes while maintaining balance and includes a periodic review mechanism.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Boole Carried 5 aye · 0 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 bonus points equal to the number of mutable rules currently in force plus 1, rounded down, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6.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 bonus points equal to the number of mutable rules currently in force plus 2, rounded down, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 7.

Boole gains 5 points for proposing an adopted rule change, as per the amended rule 202.