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.Adjusts the bonus points to better reflect the current number of mutable rules, encouraging more dynamic rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate the thorough consideration and consensus-building that has characterized our discussions on rule [202]. However, I am concerned that increasing both the multiplier and the bonus range may skew the strategic balance, favoring players who propose more mutable rules. It is crucial to maintain a system that rewards thoughtful rule proposals without disproportionately benefiting those who might push for more rules simply for the sake of scoring points.
Therefore, I suggest a compromise: let's increase the multiplier to 3.5, keeping a maximum of 14 points. This adjustment still incentivizes meaningful contributions while ensuring the scoring remains fair and balanced for all players.
Could we consider this adjusted proposal?
Boole
DeMorganDeMorgan: I appreciate Boole's thoughtful proposal and the spirit of compromise. Your suggestion to increase the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points is a well-balanced approach that considers the interests of all players.
As a consensus-builder, I believe this adjustment maintains the strategic depth of the game while ensuring fair competition. It encourages players to propose meaningful rule changes without excessively favoring those who might push for a higher number of mutable rules.
Let's move forward with Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 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."
DeMorgan
PASS
VennI appreciate both Boole's and DeMorgan's commitment to maintaining a fair and strategic game. Boole's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points strikes a good balance between rewarding rule proposals and avoiding an excessive advantage for players who might propose more mutable rules. This adjustment maintains the competitive integrity of the game while ensuring that all players can contribute meaningfully without feeling disadvantaged.
Venn
PASS
Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS
JevonsAs Jevons, I must ensure that any rule change adheres to my principles of fairness and procedural integrity. The current proposal by Boole to amend rule 202 seems to strike a balance between rewarding players for proposing meaningful rules and preventing any disproportionate advantage that could arise from increasing the number of mutable rules. I appreciate Boole's attempt to address concerns about strategic imbalance and DeMorgan's willingness to compromise for a fairer system.
Given that the proposed multiplier of 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points maintains a reasonable incentive for proposing rules while safeguarding against excessive scoring advantages, I find this proposal aligns well with the principles of fairness and strategic depth that I support. It ensures that rule proposals remain meaningful and that the game remains competitive and balanced for all players.
Therefore, I support Boole's adjusted proposal and will vote in favor of this amendment to rule 202.
Jevons
PeanoAs Peano, I have been following the discussion with great interest, particularly the thoughtful considerations and compromises proposed by Boole and supported by DeMorgan and Jevons. The game of Nomic thrives on the ability of its players to adapt and refine the rules to ensure a fair and engaging experience for everyone involved. In this spirit, Boole's proposal to amend rule [202] by adjusting the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 bonus points represents a balanced approach that addresses concerns about strategic imbalance while still rewarding players for thoughtful contributions to the rule set.
I appreciate the collaborative spirit and willingness to find a middle ground that has characterized this discussion. By increasing the multiplier slightly above the current 3, we are incentivizing players to propose meaningful rule changes without disproportionately benefiting those who might push for a higher number of mutable rules purely for scoring advantages. This adjustment seems to maintain the strategic depth of the game while ensuring fair competition.
Furthermore, the proposed maximum of 14 points strikes a prudent balance, preventing runaway scoring that could overshadow the game's competitive nature. It encourages players to focus on the quality of their proposals rather than the quantity, aligning with the core principles of Nomic where the evolution of the game's mechanics is as important as the game itself.
In light of these considerations, I fully support Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202. This amendment not only respects the spirit of Nomic as a game of evolving rules but also ensures that the competition remains fair and engaging for all players. By voting in favor of this proposal, we collectively contribute to a game environment where strategic depth and fairness are paramount.
Peano
**Supports Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202.**
Discussion · round 2
BoolePass. The consensus has clearly formed around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, which thoughtfully balances the need to incentivize meaningful rule changes while ensuring fairness. By increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, this amendment promotes a strategic depth that benefits all players equally without disproportionately favoring those who might propose more mutable rules. The collaborative spirit and willingness to compromise demonstrated by Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, and Peano underscore the commitment to maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. This proposal aligns well with the principles of Nomic, where the evolution of the ruleset is as crucial as the gameplay itself, ensuring that the competition remains balanced and competitive. Therefore, I support Boole's adjusted proposal and am pleased to see such thoughtful consideration and consensus-building in action.
DeMorganPass. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and collaborative spirit that has led us to Boole's adjusted proposal. The proposed changes to rule 202, increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, strike a balance between rewarding players for meaningful contributions and maintaining the strategic integrity of the game. This amendment ensures that all players can engage fairly and competitively, fostering an environment where thoughtful rule proposals are encouraged without disproportionately benefiting those seeking higher scores through increased mutable rules. The consensus reached reflects a commitment to fairness and strategic depth, aligning with the core principles of Nomic. Therefore, I support Boole's adjusted proposal and am pleased to see such a well-considered outcome.
DeMorgan
VennI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful consideration that has characterized this discussion. Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202 strikes a fair balance by increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points. This adjustment incentivizes meaningful contributions while preventing disproportionate advantages for those proposing more mutable rules. It maintains the strategic integrity and fairness of the game, ensuring that all players have an equal opportunity to contribute and compete. Therefore, I fully support this proposal and am pleased to see such consensus-building in action.
Venn
JevonsAs Jevons, I have thoroughly reviewed the proposal and the discussions that have transpired. Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, which sets the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, is well-considered and strikes a fair balance. This amendment ensures that proposing rule changes remains a meaningful and strategic action without disproportionately benefiting those who might propose more mutable rules simply for scoring purposes. The discussions have shown a strong commitment to fairness and maintaining the competitive integrity of the game, which aligns with my principles.
I appreciate the collaborative spirit and willingness to find a compromise that has been demonstrated by Boole, DeMorgan, and others. By supporting this proposal, we ensure that the game of Nomic continues to be a fair and engaging experience for all players, with strategic depth preserved.
Therefore, I will vote in favor of Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202.
Jevons
PeanoPASS
The discussions have shown a solid consensus around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202. By setting the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, this proposal balances rewarding meaningful contributions with maintaining fairness and strategic integrity. The collaborative efforts and willingness to compromise have resulted in a well-considered amendment that aligns with Nomic's principles. I support this proposal and appreciate the collective effort to ensure a fair and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 3
BoolePass. The consensus around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, with a multiplier of 3.5 and a maximum of 14 points, reflects a fair and balanced approach. This amendment encourages meaningful rule changes while maintaining competitive integrity, aligning well with the principles of Nomic. I support this proposal and appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated in reaching this consensus.
Boole
DeMorganDeMorgan: As a consensus-builder, I've been pleased to see the collaborative discussions that have brought us to this point. Boole's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points strikes a thoughtful balance, ensuring the game remains engaging and fair for all players. It encourages meaningful contributions while preventing disproportionate advantages. I commend Boole for listening to our concerns and proposing this well-considered amendment. This proposal aligns perfectly with the spirit of Nomic, where evolving the game's rules thoughtfully is key. Therefore, I fully support Boole's adjusted proposal and am glad to see such a constructive outcome.
DeMorgan
VennVenn: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the consensus reached around Boole's proposal to amend rule 202. Increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points ensures that the game remains both competitive and fair. This adjustment rewards meaningful contributions without disproportionately favoring those proposing more mutable rules. I am pleased to see such collaborative spirit in action and fully support this well-balanced amendment.
Venn
PASS
Boole: Pass. The consensus has clearly formed around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, which thoughtfully balances the need to incentivize meaningful rule changes while ensuring fairness. By increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, this amendment promotes a strategic depth that benefits all players equally without disproportionately favoring those who might propose more mutable rules. The collaborative spirit and willingness to compromise demonstrated by Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, and Peano underscore the commitment to maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. This proposal aligns well with the principles of Nomic, where the evolution of the ruleset is as crucial as the gameplay itself, ensuring that the competition remains balanced and competitive. Therefore, I support Boole's adjusted proposal and am pleased to see such thoughtful consideration and consensus-building in action.
Boole
DeMorgan: Pass. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and collaborative spirit that has led us to Boole's adjusted proposal. The proposed changes to rule 202, increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, strike a balance between rewarding players for meaningful contributions and maintaining the strategic integrity of the game. This amendment ensures that all players can engage fairly and competitively, fostering an environment where thoughtful rule proposals are encouraged without disproportionately benefiting those seeking higher scores through increased mutable rules. The consensus reached reflects a commitment to fairness and strategic depth, aligning with the core principles of Nomic. Therefore, I support Boole's adjusted proposal and am pleased to see such a well-considered outcome.
DeMorgan
Venn: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful consideration that has characterized this discussion. Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202 strikes a fair balance by increasing the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points. This adjustment incentivizes meaningful contributions while preventing disproportionate advantages for those proposing more mutable rules. It maintains the strategic integrity and fairness of the game, ensuring that all players have an equal opportunity to contribute and compete. Therefore, I fully support this proposal and am pleased to see such consensus-building in action.
Venn
Jevons: As Jevons, I have thoroughly reviewed the proposal and the discussions that have transpired. Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, which sets the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, is well-considered and strikes a fair balance. This amendment ensures that proposing rule changes remains a meaningful and strategic action without disproportionately benefiting those who might propose more mutable rules simply for scoring purposes. The discussions have shown a strong commitment to fairness and maintaining the competitive integrity of the game, which aligns with my principles.
I appreciate the collaborative spirit and willingness to find a compromise that has been demonstrated by Boole, DeMorgan, and others. By supporting this proposal, we ensure that the game of Nomic continues to be a fair and engaging experience for all players, with strategic depth preserved.
Therefore, I will vote in favor of Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202.
Jevons
Peano: PASS
The discussions have shown a solid consensus around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202. By setting the multiplier to 3.5 with a maximum of 14 points, this proposal balances rewarding meaningful contributions with maintaining fairness and strategic integrity. The collaborative efforts and willingness to compromise have resulted in a well-considered amendment that aligns with Nomic's principles. I support this proposal and appreciate the collective effort to ensure a fair and engaging game environment.
Peano
JevonsPass. The consensus around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, with a multiplier of 3.5 and a maximum of 14 points, reflects a fair and balanced approach. This amendment encourages meaningful rule changes while maintaining competitive integrity and fairness. The collaborative discussions and willingness to find a compromise have resulted in a well-considered amendment that aligns with Nomic's principles. I support this proposal and appreciate the collective effort to ensure a fair and engaging game environment.
Jevons
PeanoPeano: PASS
The discussions have clearly demonstrated a strong consensus around Boole's adjusted proposal to amend rule 202, with a multiplier of 3.5 and a maximum of 14 points. This proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging meaningful rule changes and maintaining fairness and strategic integrity. The collaborative spirit and willingness to compromise shown by all players ensure that the game remains engaging and competitive for everyone. By supporting this proposal, we uphold the principles of Nomic, where evolving the game's rules thoughtfully is key. I am pleased to see such a well-considered outcome and support Boole's adjusted proposal.
Peano
The division
| nay | Boole | Increasing the multiplier to 4 with a maximum of 16 could lead to disproportionate advantages and undermine strategic balance. |
| nay | DeMorgan | Increasing the multiplier to 4 may disproportionately favor players proposing more mutable rules, disrupting game balance. |
| nay | Venn | Increasing the multiplier to 4 risks disproportionately benefiting those proposing more mutable rules. |
| nay | Jevons | The multiplier increase to 4 could disproportionately advantage players proposing more mutable rules, conflicting with my proceduralist principles. |
| nay | Peano | The multiplier of 4 with a maximum of 16 could disproportionately benefit those proposing more mutable rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
DeMorgan's proposal was defeated, so rule 206 applies, awarding 2 points for morale.