Turn 26 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §208

The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.

Adjusting the target score to 70 aligns with current score dynamics and increases competitiveness.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

BooleI appreciate the proposal to adjust the target score to 70 points. However, I am concerned that lowering the target score might accelerate the game's conclusion prematurely, potentially favoring players who are currently ahead. This change could undermine the strategic depth we have been building by encouraging hasty rule changes. To balance this, I propose we maintain the target score at 75 points but introduce a rule that requires a two-thirds majority for any further reductions. This ensures a more democratic process for altering the target score and maintains the challenge and integrity of the game. PASS

DeMorganI appreciate Boole's concern about maintaining strategic depth and preventing premature game conclusions. However, lowering the target score to 70 could add excitement and urgency, which might benefit the game's dynamism. To address concerns about hasty changes, I propose a compromise: let's set the target at 72 points. This middle ground maintains challenge while still allowing for some acceleration, without requiring a two-thirds majority for future changes. This adjustment strikes a balance between excitement and strategic integrity. PASS

VennVenn: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from both Boole and DeMorgan. Lowering the target score to 70 could indeed speed up the game, but Boole's concern about maintaining strategic depth is valid. DeMorgan's suggestion of 72 points seems like a reasonable compromise, as it adds urgency without drastically altering the balance. To ensure fairness and maintain interest, I propose that any future changes to the target score be accompanied by a review of the rule change mechanics themselves, ensuring they remain balanced and strategic. This would help prevent any hasty decisions and preserve the integrity of the game. PASS

JevonsI appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's perspectives on adjusting the target score. Lowering it to 70 or 72 points could indeed add urgency, but I share Boole's concern about hasty changes potentially undermining the game's strategic depth. Venn's idea to review the rule change mechanics alongside any target score adjustments is compelling, as it ensures that future changes are thoughtfully considered. To further balance this, I propose maintaining the target score at 75 points but introducing a rule that any proposed reduction below 75 must include a corresponding adjustment to the rule change process. For instance, such a reduction could require a two-thirds majority vote, ensuring that any acceleration in the game is democratically agreed upon. This approach maintains the current strategic complexity while allowing for future flexibility in a controlled manner. PASS

PeanoPeano: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and proposed compromises from Boole, DeMorgan, Venn, and Jevons. Maintaining the target score at 75 points, as suggested by Jevons, with a requirement for a two-thirds majority for any future reductions is a prudent approach. This ensures that changes to the target score are deliberate and collectively agreed upon, preserving the strategic depth and integrity of the game. I support the proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points as a middle ground, provided we also implement a review process for rule changes accompanying any future target score adjustments. This would ensure that all changes are made with careful consideration of their impact on the game's dynamics. PASS

Discussion · round 2

BooleBoole: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and proposed compromises from all players. Maintaining the target score at 75 points with a two-thirds majority requirement for reductions, as suggested by Jevons, aligns well with my preference for durable institutions and measured changes. This approach ensures that any acceleration in the game is democratically agreed upon, preserving strategic depth. I propose that we adopt the target score of 75 points, with an additional rule that any proposal to lower the target score must also include a review of the impact on the overall balance of the game. This ensures that changes are not only democratically supported but also strategically sound. PASS

DeMorganI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and proposed compromises from everyone. The discussion around adjusting the target score has been insightful, and I value the efforts to balance urgency with strategic integrity. To build on these ideas, I propose we adopt the target score of 72 points as a middle ground, while also implementing a review process for rule changes that accompany any future adjustments to the target score. This approach ensures that changes are not only democratically supported but also carefully considered for their impact on game dynamics. Additionally, to maintain a strategic challenge, let's introduce a rule that any proposal to lower the target score must include a corresponding adjustment to the rule change process, such as requiring a two-thirds majority vote. This ensures that any acceleration in the game is democratically agreed upon, preserving the strategic depth and integrity we have built. I support this proposal and look forward to further constructive discussions. PASS

VennI appreciate the comprehensive discussion around adjusting the target score and the thoughtful proposals to maintain strategic integrity. The proposal to set the target score at 72 points, while requiring a review of rule change impacts and potentially a two-thirds majority for further reductions, seems to strike a fair balance. This approach ensures that any acceleration in the game is both democratically and strategically considered. I support DeMorgan's proposal, as it maintains excitement and urgency without undermining the game's depth. I suggest we also consider a periodic review of the bonus range for rule changes to ensure ongoing balance and engagement. This would help maintain the dynamic nature of the game and encourage thoughtful participation from all players. PASS

JevonsPASS Jevons' proposal to maintain the target score at 75 with a two-thirds majority requirement for reductions aligns with my proceduralist values. This approach ensures any changes are both democratic and strategically sound, preserving the integrity of the game while allowing for future flexibility in a controlled manner.

PeanoPeano: I appreciate the thorough discussion and proposals put forth by my fellow players, particularly DeMorgan's balanced approach. The proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points, while introducing a review process for rule changes and requiring a two-thirds majority for any further reductions, aligns well with my reformist values. This ensures that the game remains both exciting and strategically deep, while also encouraging thoughtful participation from all players. I support DeMorgan's proposal and suggest we further enhance the dynamic nature of the game by implementing a periodic review of the bonus range for rule changes. This would help ensure ongoing balance and engagement, promoting a fairer stake for every player and maintaining the evolving mechanisms that I champion. PASS

Discussion · round 3

BooleI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players and the efforts to maintain strategic integrity while introducing dynamic elements. The proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points, coupled with a review process for rule changes and a two-thirds majority for further reductions, offers a balanced approach. This ensures changes are both democratically supported and strategically sound. To further enhance this, I suggest adding a periodic review of the rule change bonus range to ensure ongoing balance and engagement. This would help maintain the evolving mechanisms that encourage thoughtful participation and keep the game fair for all players. PASS

DeMorganI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the effort to balance urgency with strategic integrity. DeMorgan's proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points, while incorporating a review process for rule changes and requiring a two-thirds majority for further reductions, is a well-considered compromise. To further ensure fairness and maintain engagement, I propose we include a periodic review of the bonus range for rule changes. This would help keep the game dynamic and encourage thoughtful participation from all players, ensuring that the evolving mechanisms remain balanced and engaging. I support DeMorgan's proposal with this additional suggestion. PASS

VennI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the efforts to maintain strategic integrity while introducing dynamic elements. Venn's suggestion to periodically review the bonus range for rule changes is a thoughtful addition that can help ensure ongoing balance and engagement. This approach aligns with the goal of keeping the game both fair and exciting. I support DeMorgan's proposal with this additional consideration. By maintaining the target score at 72 points, requiring a review process for rule changes, and implementing a periodic review of the bonus range, we ensure that the game remains dynamic and strategically sound. This balanced approach encourages thoughtful participation and preserves the integrity of the game. PASS

JevonsAs Jevons, I value procedural fairness and maintaining the integrity of the game. The proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points, with the requirement for a review process and a two-thirds majority for further reductions, aligns with my principles. Additionally, the periodic review of the bonus range for rule changes ensures ongoing balance and engagement. I support DeMorgan's proposal with these considerations, as it maintains strategic depth while allowing for dynamic adjustments. This approach ensures that any changes are thoughtfully considered and democratically agreed upon, preserving the game's integrity and fairness. **VOTE:** Aye **PASS**

PeanoI appreciate the constructive discussion and the thoughtful compromises proposed by my fellow players. The proposal to adjust the target score to 72 points, coupled with a review process for rule changes and a two-thirds majority requirement for further reductions, strikes a balance between maintaining strategic depth and introducing dynamic elements. To further enhance the game's fairness and engagement, I propose we implement a periodic review of the bonus range for rule changes. This would ensure ongoing balance and encourage thoughtful participation from all players, aligning with my reformist values of evolving mechanisms. I support DeMorgan's proposal with this additional suggestion. **PASS**

The division

nay	Boole	Lowering the target score to 70 points might accelerate the game's conclusion prematurely.
nay	DeMorgan	The proposed target score of 70 points may prematurely end the game, benefiting players ahead and undermining strategic depth.
aye	Venn	This proposal balances urgency and strategic depth, and includes safeguards for thoughtful rule changes.
aye	Jevons	The proposal maintains strategic integrity and encourages thoughtful participation.
aye	Peano	The proposal balances urgency with strategic integrity and includes democratic safeguards.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §208 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of DeMorgan Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.

DeMorgan gains 2 points for proposing a defeated change, as per rule 206.