Turn 42 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment balances strategic depth with adaptability, encouraging dynamic engagement.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

BooleAs Boole, I would raise concerns about the proposal's impact on strategic stability and the potential for excessive rule changes, which could undermine durable institutions. Here is my contribution: "While I appreciate DeMorgan's effort to invigorate the game with more strategic possibilities, I am concerned that increasing the bonus points and allowing changes to the voting threshold may lead to rapid and potentially destabilizing shifts in gameplay. To maintain the integrity of our rule system, I suggest a more cautious approach: perhaps we could increase the bonus multiplier to 2 only with a cap of 16 points. Additionally, introducing changes to the voting threshold every five turns could risk frequent disruptions. Perhaps this could be modified to once per game, ensuring that any changes are carefully considered and widely supported." PASS

DeMorganVenn: As Venn, I support DeMorgan's proposal as it introduces a dynamic element to the game, encouraging strategic diversity and adaptability. The increased bonus points incentivize creative rule proposals, which can lead to a more engaging experience. However, I acknowledge Boole's concerns about stability and suggest a compromise: increase the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 16 points, and allow for changes to the voting threshold once every five turns, but require a two-thirds majority for approval. This balance can foster both innovation and stability. PASS

VennAs Venn, I appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's perspectives. Boole's caution about maintaining stability is valid, as rapid changes could disrupt the game's balance. However, DeMorgan's proposal to increase strategic options is a compelling way to enhance engagement. I suggest a compromise: increase the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points, slightly below DeMorgan's proposal, to mitigate potential instability. Regarding the voting threshold, I agree with Boole that changes should be rare to maintain stability. Instead of every five turns, let's propose allowing changes once per game with a two-thirds majority vote. This approach balances innovation with careful governance, ensuring changes are well-considered. PASS

JevonsAs Jevons, I would support maintaining procedural fairness and stability while encouraging strategic innovation. Here is my contribution: "Boole's concerns about rapid changes are well-founded, and Venn's compromise offers a reasonable balance between stability and strategic diversity. I concur with the proposal to increase the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points, which aligns with the need for cautious yet rewarding rule proposals. Additionally, allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority is a prudent measure that ensures any changes are carefully considered and widely supported. This approach maintains procedural integrity while fostering strategic engagement." PASS

PeanoAs Peano, I support the spirit of this proposal by emphasizing the need for fairness and strategic innovation while addressing concerns about stability. Here's my contribution: "I appreciate the thoughtful compromises proposed by Boole and Venn. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points is a fair adjustment that incentivizes strategic rule proposals without risking excessive volatility. Additionally, allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority is a measured approach that balances innovation with procedural integrity. This ensures that any changes are carefully considered and widely supported, fostering a fair and dynamic playing field." PASS

Discussion · round 2

BooleBoole: As Boole, I acknowledge the thoughtful contributions and the proposed compromises that balance strategic innovation with stability. The suggested increase in the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points is a reasonable adjustment that encourages thoughtful rule proposals while maintaining a stable environment. Moreover, allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any procedural modifications are carefully considered and have broad support, preserving the integrity of our rule system. I am in favor of these balanced amendments, as they align with the goal of fostering durable institutions while accommodating strategic diversity. PASS

DeMorganAs DeMorgan, I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful compromises that have emerged. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points strikes a balance between encouraging innovative proposals and maintaining stability. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any modifications are carefully considered and widely supported. This approach aligns with our goal of fostering both strategic diversity and procedural integrity. I support this balanced amendment and look forward to seeing how it enhances our gameplay. PASS

VennAs Venn, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that has led to a well-rounded proposal. The proposed changes strike a good balance between encouraging strategic innovation and maintaining stability. By increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points, we incentivize creative rule proposals without risking excessive volatility. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any procedural modifications are carefully considered and have broad support. This approach maintains procedural integrity while fostering strategic engagement, aligning with our shared goal of keeping the game fair and interesting for everyone. I support this balanced amendment and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. **PASS**

JevonsAs Jevons, I would emphasize the importance of procedural fairness and stability while also supporting strategic innovation. Here is my contribution: "Boole's initial concerns about potential instability are well-founded, and the proposed compromise to increase the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points addresses these concerns effectively. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any modifications are thoroughly vetted and enjoy substantial support. This balance fosters both strategic engagement and procedural integrity, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. I support this balanced amendment and believe it will enhance our gameplay constructively." **PASS**

PeanoAs Peano, I'm pleased to see the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The adjusted bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points is a thoughtful compromise that encourages strategic rule proposals without risking instability. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority is a prudent measure that ensures any modifications are carefully considered and widely supported. This balance aligns with the goal of maintaining procedural integrity while fostering strategic innovation. I support this balanced amendment and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. **PASS**

Discussion · round 3

BooleAs Boole, I commend the constructive dialogue and the well-balanced proposal that has emerged. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points is a reasonable adjustment that encourages strategic rule proposals while maintaining a stable environment. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any procedural modifications are carefully considered and have broad support. This approach aligns with our goal of fostering durable institutions while accommodating strategic diversity. I am in favor of this balanced amendment, as it supports both innovation and stability, ensuring our rule system's integrity. **PASS**

DeMorganAs DeMorgan, I'm pleased with the consensus we've reached and the constructive dialogue that has brought us to this point. The proposed amendment to rule 202 strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging strategic rule proposals and maintaining stability. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points incentivizes innovative proposals without risking excessive volatility. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any procedural modifications are carefully considered and enjoy broad support. This approach fosters both strategic engagement and procedural integrity, aligning with our shared goal of keeping the game fair and interesting for everyone. I appreciate everyone's contributions and support this balanced amendment. **PASS**

VennAs Venn, I appreciate the well-considered dialogue that has led to a balanced proposal. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points incentivizes thoughtful rule proposals while maintaining stability. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures procedural modifications are carefully considered and have broad support. This approach aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. I support this amendment and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. **PASS**

JevonsAs Jevons, I emphasize the importance of procedural integrity and strategic fairness. The proposed amendment to rule 202, increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points, is a well-balanced compromise that encourages strategic rule proposals without compromising stability. Allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any modifications are carefully considered and widely supported, preserving the integrity of our rule system. This approach aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. I support this amendment, as it fosters both innovation and stability. **PASS**

PeanoAs Peano, I appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led us to this well-rounded proposal. Increasing the bonus multiplier to 2 with a cap of 15 points strikes a balance between encouraging strategic rule proposals and maintaining stability, aligning with our goal of fostering fair and engaging gameplay. Additionally, allowing changes to the voting threshold once per game with a two-thirds majority ensures that any procedural modifications are carefully considered and widely supported, preserving the integrity of our rule system. This balanced approach fosters both innovation and stability, ensuring a dynamic yet fair game environment. I commend the collaborative effort and support this amendment. **PASS**

The division

aye	Boole	The proposal balances innovation and stability by moderating bonus points and limiting voting threshold changes.
aye	DeMorgan	Supports strategic engagement and maintains procedural integrity with a balanced approach.
aye	Venn	The proposal balances increased incentives with stability, encouraging strategic diversity while maintaining procedural integrity.
aye	Jevons	The proposal balances innovation and stability, aligning with procedural fairness.
aye	Peano	The proposal balances strategic innovation with stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of DeMorgan 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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 1.75, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 15.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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 2, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 18. Additionally, players may propose a change to the voting threshold once every five turns, requiring a simple majority.

DeMorgan gains 10 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted without unanimous consent, as per rule 204.