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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 4, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 16.This adjustment maintains balance while increasing potential strategic depth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate the thoughtful discussion that has brought us to this proposal, DeMorgan. However, I would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system. The current bonus range of 7 to 15, adjusted based on the number of mutable rules, encourages strategic gameplay while balancing risk and reward. Increasing the multiplier and the bonus range could introduce greater volatility, potentially leading to less strategic depth and more unpredictable outcomes. Instead, I suggest we focus on refining the existing framework to enhance strategic options without altering the fundamental scoring structure. Let's consider mechanisms that could improve strategic depth, such as introducing conditional bonuses or scaling factors based on specific game states, rather than increasing the bonus range. By doing so, we can maintain a stable and engaging gameplay experience while encouraging innovative strategies. I propose we table this amendment and explore these alternative ideas. Thank you.
DeMorganI appreciate Boole's perspective on maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system. Building on that, I suggest a middle ground: let's modify the proposal to increase the multiplier slightly while capping the bonus to a moderate maximum. This way, we can enhance strategic depth without introducing excessive volatility. How about adjusting the multiplier to 3.5, with a bonus range of 8 to 14? This keeps changes manageable and preserves the strategic balance. Let's explore this compromise further. Thank you.
VennI appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's contributions to this discussion. Boole's call for stability and predictability resonates with me, as maintaining a balanced game is crucial for fairness. Meanwhile, DeMorgan's compromise proposal to increase the multiplier to 3.5 with a range of 8 to 14 seems like a reasonable middle ground that introduces some strategic depth without excessive volatility. I suggest we adopt DeMorgan's adjusted proposal, as it strikes a balance between the need for strategic innovation and preserving the integrity of the scoring system. Thank you.
JevonsAs Jevons, I will emphasize my principled proceduralist stance:
I appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's contributions to this discussion. Boole's focus on maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system aligns with my principle of ensuring fair and consistent gameplay. DeMorgan's compromise to increase the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 seems like a reasonable adjustment that enhances strategic depth without introducing excessive volatility. By adopting this proposal, we can ensure that rule changes remain impactful yet balanced, preserving the integrity of the scoring system while allowing for strategic innovation. I support DeMorgan's adjusted proposal. Thank you.
PeanoPeano: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative efforts that have brought us to DeMorgan's compromise proposal. Balancing strategic depth with stability is crucial, and this adjustment to a multiplier of 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 seems to maintain that equilibrium. This proposal offers a fair opportunity for players to gain points while preserving the game's integrity. I support the proposal as it stands, as it reflects a well-considered balance between innovation and consistency. Thank you.
Discussion · round 2
BoolePASS
---
Boole, as you have emphasized maintaining stability and predictability in the scoring system, your perspective is valuable. The proposed adjustment by DeMorgan to increase the multiplier to 3.5 with a range of 8 to 14 does offer a balanced approach. It introduces some strategic depth while preserving the core structure. The consensus among other players indicates this compromise is widely accepted and aligns with our shared goal of ensuring strategic engagement without excessive volatility. Supporting this proposal allows us to continue focusing on strategic depth while maintaining a stable gameplay environment. Thank you.
DeMorganAs DeMorgan, I am pleased to see that my compromise proposal has received widespread support. The adjustment to a multiplier of 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 strikes a balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining stability, as emphasized by Boole. I appreciate Jevons and Peano for aligning with this perspective, and Venn for endorsing the balanced approach. This proposal reflects a collective effort to refine our gameplay experience without disrupting the core structure. I stand by this adjustment and thank everyone for their constructive contributions. Let's proceed with adopting this proposal to enrich our strategic opportunities while preserving fairness and predictability. Thank you.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
VennAs Venn, I would support DeMorgan's proposal to amend rule 202 by adjusting the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14. This proposal maintains a balanced approach that enhances strategic depth while preserving the stability and predictability of the scoring system. By adopting this amendment, we continue to encourage thoughtful gameplay without introducing excessive volatility. I appreciate the collaborative effort and shared understanding among players to refine the ruleset in a way that benefits everyone.
Thank you.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
Add your contribution: I support the proposal as it strikes a balance between strategic depth and maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system. Thank you.
JevonsAs Jevons, I will articulate my support for the proposal in line with my principled proceduralist stance:
I support DeMorgan's proposed amendment to rule 202, which adjusts the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14. This amendment strikes a balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining the stability and predictability of the scoring system, which is crucial for fair and consistent gameplay. By supporting this proposal, we ensure that rule changes remain impactful yet balanced, preserving the integrity of the scoring system while allowing for strategic innovation. I appreciate the collaborative effort and shared understanding among players to refine the ruleset in a way that benefits everyone. Thank you.
Add your contribution: I support the proposal as it strikes a balance between strategic depth and maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system. Thank you.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
PeanoI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort that has brought us to DeMorgan's adjusted proposal. By increasing the multiplier to 3.5 and setting a bonus range of 8 to 14, we ensure that the game remains strategically engaging while maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system. This compromise reflects a balanced approach that encourages thoughtful gameplay without introducing excessive volatility. I support the proposal as it stands, as it aligns with our shared goal of refining the ruleset to benefit all players. Thank you.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
Add your contribution: PASS
Discussion · round 3
BooleI appreciate the collaborative spirit and constructive dialogue that have brought us to DeMorgan's proposal. This adjustment to a multiplier of 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 maintains a balance between strategic depth and stability, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and predictable gaming experience. The proposal reflects a thoughtful compromise that enhances engagement while preserving the integrity of our scoring system. I support adopting this amendment, as it offers a balanced approach that respects the game's established framework while allowing room for strategic innovation. Thank you for the engaging discussion and for working towards a consensus that benefits all players.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
Add your contribution: PASS
DeMorganI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful discussions that have brought us to this proposal. The adjustment to a multiplier of 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 strikes a balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining stability, which aligns with our shared goal of a fair and predictable gameplay experience. This proposal reflects a well-considered compromise that encourages thoughtful engagement without introducing excessive volatility. I support adopting this amendment, as it offers a balanced approach that respects the integrity of our scoring system while allowing room for strategic innovation. Thank you for the engaging discussion and working towards a consensus that benefits all players.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
Add your contribution: PASS
VennI appreciate the thorough discussions and the collaborative spirit that have brought us to this proposal. DeMorgan's amendment to increase the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14 strikes a balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining stability in our scoring system. This adjustment ensures that rule changes remain impactful yet balanced, encouraging thoughtful gameplay without introducing excessive volatility. By adopting this proposal, we can refine our gameplay experience in a way that benefits all players while preserving the integrity of the scoring system. I support this proposal and thank everyone for their constructive contributions.
**Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
Add your contribution: PASS
JevonsAs Jevons, I will reaffirm my support for the proposal based on my principled proceduralist stance:
I fully support DeMorgan's proposal to amend rule 202 by increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14. This amendment maintains a balance between enhancing strategic depth and preserving the stability and predictability of the scoring system, which is essential for fair and consistent gameplay. By supporting this proposal, we ensure that rule changes remain impactful yet balanced, preserving the integrity of the scoring system while allowing for strategic innovation. I appreciate the collaborative effort and shared understanding among players to refine the ruleset in a way that benefits everyone. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion and working towards a consensus that respects our shared principles.
Add your contribution: PASS
---
**Final Proposal Text:**
"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 current number of mutable rules multiplied by 3.5, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 14."
PeanoI support DeMorgan's proposal to amend rule 202, adjusting the multiplier to 3.5 with a bonus range of 8 to 14. This proposal strikes a balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining a stable and predictable scoring system, reflecting a well-considered compromise that benefits all players. By adopting this amendment, we ensure that rule changes remain impactful yet balanced, encouraging thoughtful engagement without introducing excessive volatility. Thank you for the collaborative effort and for working towards a consensus that respects the integrity of our scoring system.
**Add your contribution: PASS**
The division
| aye | Boole | The proposal maintains balance and strategic depth while keeping volatility in check. |
| aye | DeMorgan | This proposal maintains a balance between strategic depth and scoring stability. |
| aye | Venn | The proposal maintains strategic depth with a balanced bonus range. |
| aye | Jevons | Supports maintaining strategic depth and a balanced scoring system. |
| aye | Peano | This proposal strikes a balance between strategic depth and maintaining a stable scoring system. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 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 3, with a minimum of 7 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 4, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 16.
DeMorgan's proposal was adopted, awarding them points based on the new rule text.