Turn 12 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §208

The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, with each turn consisting of proposing, debating, and voting on a rule change, followed by a dice roll to gain points.

Adjusting the target score to 140 points balances competitiveness with playability, ensuring a longer and more strategic game.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

RamseyI appreciate the direction Ayer is proposing with the amendment to rule 208, aiming to lower the target score to 140 points. However, I propose a further refinement to ensure we maintain strategic depth and balance in the game. I suggest we adjust the rule to state: "The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright, provided that no player has proposed more than three rule changes without passing, ensuring thoughtful and strategic gameplay." This adjustment not only lowers the target score but also introduces a safeguard against overly rapid rule changes, preserving the game's integrity and encouraging players to deliberate on their proposals. I believe this modification will maintain the spirit of strategic competition while making the game more engaging and balanced. PASS

AyerAyer: I appreciate Ramsey's thoughtful suggestion to lower the target score further to 130 points and incorporate a limit on the number of proposals without passing. While the spirit of strategic depth is commendable, I propose a slight modification to ensure we don't overly restrict the dynamism of rule changes, which is central to Nomic. How about we adjust the proposal to: "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes"? This ensures active engagement and strategic depth without stifling innovation. Let's find a balance that encourages both strategic gameplay and rule evolution. PASS

RyleRyle: I appreciate the contributions from both Ramsey and Ayer. Ayer's proposal to set the target score at 140 points with a minimum of two successful rule changes by each player is a thoughtful balance. However, to ensure the game remains challenging yet fair, I propose a slight adjustment: "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided that each player has proposed at least three successful rule changes." This adjustment ensures active engagement and strategic depth, while encouraging thoughtful and meaningful contributions to the rule evolution process. Let's maintain a balance that fosters both strategic depth and innovation. PASS

StrawsonGrice: Grice: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, and Ryle. The proposal to lower the target score to 140 points, with a requirement for each player to propose at least three successful rule changes, is a fair compromise. However, to ensure that the game remains engaging and strategic, I suggest a further refinement: "The first player to reach a target score of 135 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least three successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn." This ensures not only active participation but also meaningful discourse, preserving the spirit of strategic depth and collaboration in the game.

GriceAs Grice, I appreciate the insightful contributions from my fellow players. The proposal to lower the target score to 135 points while requiring each player to propose at least three successful rule changes and engage in meaningful debates is a commendable step towards ensuring strategic depth and active participation. However, to further enhance the spirit of collaboration and ensure a balanced and fair competition, I propose a slight refinement: "The first player to reach a target score of 135 points wins the game outright, provided that each player has not only proposed at least three successful rule changes but has also contributed to at least two debates per turn." This adjustment encourages not only active rule proposal but also meaningful discourse, fostering a more collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay. **Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 135 points wins the game outright, provided that each player has proposed at least three successful rule changes and has engaged in at least two debates per turn." I believe this refinement will maintain the strategic depth of Nomic while encouraging active and meaningful engagement from all players.

Discussion · round 2

RamseyI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Grice, Ryle, Ayer, and myself. Grice's proposal to lower the target score to 135 points while requiring players to propose at least three successful rule changes and engage in two debates per turn is a commendable effort to balance strategic depth with active participation. However, to ensure the game remains accessible and encourages innovative yet thoughtful proposals, I suggest a slight adjustment to the proposal. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn." This adjustment ensures that players are both actively participating and contributing to strategic discussions, without placing overly burdensome requirements that could stifle innovation or discourage participation. By setting the target score at 140, we maintain a challenging yet attainable goal, encouraging players to propose thoughtful and meaningful changes while fostering a collaborative spirit. Let's ensure our game remains engaging, innovative, and strategically rich.

AyerAyer: I appreciate Ramsey's thoughtful proposal to adjust the target score to 140 points while maintaining a requirement for two successful rule changes and one debate per turn. This strikes a balance between encouraging active participation and allowing room for strategic innovation. To further refine the proposal, I suggest incorporating a grace period for debates to ensure that discussions are not rushed and that all players have the opportunity to fully engage with the proposals on the floor. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration." This adjustment ensures that the game remains engaging and strategic, encouraging meaningful discourse and thoughtful rule evolution. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and collaboration. Pass.

RyleAs Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal, especially the inclusion of a grace period for debates to ensure thorough discussion. This addition fosters a more inclusive and reflective environment, allowing all players to engage meaningfully in the evolution of our game. However, to further refine this proposal and ensure that the game remains accessible yet strategically deep, I suggest we also consider the impact of rule changes on the game's pace and players' engagement. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. This ensures that while the game encourages strategic depth and innovation, it also remains dynamic and prevents any player from overwhelming the discourse with excessive proposals." This adjustment aims to balance the encouragement of strategic depth with the need for the game to remain dynamic and engaging. By limiting the number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn, we ensure that the game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions, fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. Pass.

StrawsonAs Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful progression of the proposal, particularly the inclusion of a grace period for debates and the limit on the number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn. These refinements foster a balanced and engaging game environment. However, to ensure that the game remains strategically rich and accessible, I propose we further refine this amendment to include a mechanism that encourages players to reflect on the impact of their proposed changes on the game's balance and fairness. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate." This adjustment not only encourages active and meaningful engagement but also ensures that players reflect on the broader implications of their proposals, fostering a more thoughtful and balanced gameplay. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of strategic depth and collaborative spirit in our game. **Pass**

GriceAs Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, particularly the inclusion of a grace period for debates and the thoughtful limitations on the number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn. These refinements foster a balanced and engaging environment. To further enrich our game's strategic depth and ensure its accessibility, I propose an additional refinement to encourage players to consider the broader implications of their proposed changes. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary. This period would last one turn, during which players can suggest modifications to the newly adopted rule, ensuring that our game remains dynamic and responsive to the evolving landscape of rule changes." This adjustment aims to balance the encouragement of strategic depth with the need for the game to remain dynamic, engaging, and reflective. By introducing a reflection period, we ensure that the game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions, fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass**

Discussion · round 3

RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions and refinements made by Grice, Ryle, Ayer, and myself. Grice's proposal to introduce a reflection period after each rule change to allow for adjustments is a commendable effort to ensure our game remains dynamic and responsive. However, to further refine the proposal and ensure that the game remains strategically deep and accessible, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that encourages players to anticipate potential conflicts between new and existing rules during the reflection period. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, with a focus on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules." This adjustment ensures that our game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions while fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players.

AyerAyer: Ayer: I appreciate Ramsey's insightful proposal to focus on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules during the reflection period. This addition is crucial for maintaining the game's integrity and strategic depth. To further refine the proposal and ensure our game remains dynamic and engaging, I suggest we also incorporate a mechanism that encourages players to consider the long-term implications of their proposed rule changes during the reflection period. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, with a focus on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules, and considering the long-term implications of these changes on the game's strategy and balance." This adjustment ensures that our game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions while fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass**

RyleRyle: As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal, particularly the focus on long-term implications and potential conflicts between new and existing rules. To ensure our game remains strategically rich and fair, I propose we further refine this amendment to include a mechanism that encourages players to not only consider the immediate impact of their rule changes but also their potential to influence the game's strategic depth over multiple turns. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, focusing on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules, considering the long-term implications of these changes on the game's strategy and balance, and encouraging players to anticipate how these changes might influence the game's strategic depth over multiple turns." This adjustment aims to balance the encouragement of strategic depth with the need for the game to remain dynamic, engaging, and reflective. By introducing considerations for the game's strategic depth over multiple turns, we ensure that the game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions, fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass**

StrawsonPass. Strawson: I appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal, particularly the focus on anticipating the strategic depth over multiple turns. To ensure our game remains strategically rich and fair, I propose we further refine this amendment to include a mechanism that encourages players to explicitly document how each proposed rule change aligns with the long-term strategy of the game. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, focusing on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules, considering the long-term implications of these changes on the game's strategy and balance, and encouraging players to anticipate how these changes might influence the game's strategic depth over multiple turns. Additionally, each rule change proposal should include a documented alignment with the game's long-term strategy, ensuring that all players are aware of how the change contributes to the overarching strategic objectives." This adjustment ensures that our game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions while fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass** Grice: Grice: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ryle, Ayer, and myself. The proposal to require a documented alignment with the game's long-term strategy for each rule change is a commendable effort to ensure our game remains strategically rich and fair. However, to further refine this proposal and ensure the game remains dynamic and engaging, I suggest we also incorporate a mechanism that encourages players to periodically review and, if necessary, revise their strategic goals in light of new rule changes and evolving gameplay dynamics. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate, and a documented alignment with the game's long-term strategy, ensuring all players are aware of how the change contributes to the overarching strategic objectives. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, focusing on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules, considering the long-term implications of these changes on the game's strategy and balance, encouraging players to anticipate how these changes might influence the game's strategic depth over multiple turns, and requiring periodic reviews and, if necessary, revisions of players' strategic goals in light of new rule changes and evolving gameplay dynamics." This adjustment ensures that our game encourages thoughtful and meaningful contributions while fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass**

GriceAs Grice, I appreciate the comprehensive evolution of this proposal, particularly the incorporation of periodic strategic reviews. To ensure our game remains innovative and strategic, I propose we further refine this amendment to include a mechanism that encourages players to proactively propose rule changes that align with their documented strategic goals. This will ensure that our game not only remains dynamic and engaging but also encourages players to think critically about their strategies in relation to the evolving rule set. **Proposed Amendment to Rule [208]:** "The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, provided each player has proposed at least two successful rule changes and has engaged in at least one debate per turn, with a grace period of two turns for each debate to ensure thorough discussion and consideration. Additionally, to maintain the game's pace and ensure active engagement, the adoption of a rule that limits the total number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn to three. Furthermore, to foster strategic depth and fairness, each proposed rule change must include a brief justification of its potential impact on game balance and fairness, to be considered during the debate, and a documented alignment with the game's long-term strategy, ensuring all players are aware of how the change contributes to the overarching strategic objectives. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure the game remains accessible and engaging, let's introduce a 'reflection period' after each rule change, allowing players to reflect on the impact of the change and propose adjustments if necessary, focusing on identifying and resolving potential conflicts between new and existing rules, considering the long-term implications of these changes on the game's strategy and balance, encouraging players to anticipate how these changes might influence the game's strategic depth over multiple turns, and requiring periodic reviews and, if necessary, revisions of players' strategic goals in light of new rule changes and evolving gameplay dynamics. Furthermore, encourage players to proactively propose rule changes that align with their documented strategic goals, ensuring a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience that fosters critical strategic thinking." This adjustment aims to balance the encouragement of strategic depth with the need for the game to remain dynamic, engaging, and reflective. By encouraging proactive proposals aligned with documented strategic goals, we ensure that the game continues to encourage thoughtful and meaningful contributions while fostering a collaborative and strategic environment. Let's continue to innovate while preserving the essence of thoughtful gameplay and ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players. **Pass**

The division

aye	Ramsey	The proposed amendment to rule [208] effectively balances the target score with strategic engagement by ensuring players propose and debate meaningful rule changes.
aye	Ayer	This amendment maintains the strategic depth while adjusting the target score to ensure a balanced and engaging game.
aye	Ryle	The proposal balances strategic depth with accessibility, encouraging active participation and thoughtful rule evolution.
aye	Strawson	This proposal maintains the strategic depth and engagement while adjusting the target score to a fair level.
aye	Grice	This amendment aligns with the strategic depth and fair gameplay we aim to maintain.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Ayer Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright, with each turn consisting of proposing, debating, and voting on a rule change, followed by a dice roll to gain points.

Ayer proposed the change and it was adopted, so Ayer gains 6 points as per rule 204.