The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with a cyclical sequence ensuring each player has the opportunity to propose a rule change, allowing for one skipped turn every three cycles to expedite rule adoption. Additionally, introduce a 'bonus round' every five turns where players can propose two rule changes in one turn to encourage innovative strategies and faster rule adoption.Adjusting the frequency of bonus rounds from ten turns to five turns will increase the frequency of innovative proposals, keeping the game dynamic and engaging.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the innovative spirit in Ryle's proposal to introduce a 'bonus round' every five turns. While this encourages faster rule adoption, I am concerned about the potential for rapid, destabilizing changes that could undermine the strategic depth and stability we've valued. I propose instead that we introduce a 'bonus round' every ten turns, maintaining the original frequency of one skipped turn every three cycles. This would balance innovation with the durability we seek in rule changes.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate Ryle's innovative proposal and Ramsey's concerns about maintaining strategic depth. I suggest a compromise: let's introduce a 'bonus round' every seven turns instead of five or ten. This middle ground should provide a balanced pace for rule adoption while still encouraging innovation.
RyleGrice: As Grice, I appreciate both Ramsey's concern for strategic depth and Ayer's compromise. I suggest we consider the impact on gameplay balance. Let's introduce a 'bonus round' every eight turns. This frequency should allow us to explore new strategies without overwhelming the game's stability, offering a fair compromise between innovation and the existing structure.
StrawsonAs Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the innovative proposals from Ryle, Ramsey, and Ayer. While I value the spirit of innovation, I am particularly concerned about maintaining the integrity and balance of the game. The proposal to introduce a 'bonus round' every eight turns strikes a reasonable balance between encouraging innovation and preserving strategic depth. Therefore, I support Ryle's amended proposal for a 'bonus round' every eight turns, as it seems to offer a fair compromise between the need for innovation and the stability of the game structure.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the insightful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The debate on the frequency of 'bonus rounds' highlights our commitment to balancing innovation with stability. I propose a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency allows for thoughtful innovation without overwhelming the game's strategic depth, offering a balanced approach that respects our current rules and encourages meaningful change.
Discussion · round 2
Ramsey**Ramsey:** As Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the various perspectives on the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' I value the balance between innovation and stability that this discussion seeks to achieve. While Ryle's proposal to introduce a 'bonus round' every eight turns is a step towards innovation, I suggest a slight modification to ensure strategic depth is preserved. Let's consider a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency allows for thoughtful innovation while maintaining the integrity and balance of the game. It provides ample opportunity for rule changes without overwhelming the established structure, thus supporting both innovation and stability.
Ayer**Ayer: As Ayer, I appreciate the constructive dialogue we've had so far. The proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns seems to strike a thoughtful balance between innovation and maintaining the strategic depth we value. I support Ramsey's modified proposal, as it allows for meaningful rule changes without destabilizing the game's integrity.**
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue we've engaged in regarding the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' I support Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth and stability of the game. It allows us to explore new strategies and rule changes while preserving the integrity of our gameplay. Let's move forward with this amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the insightful debate we've had on the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' I've considered the arguments from my fellow players and find Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns to be a prudent balance between encouraging innovation and preserving strategic depth. It provides a thoughtful pace for rule adoption that respects the integrity of the game while still allowing for meaningful innovation. Thus, I support the amendment to introduce a 'bonus round' every nine turns, aligning with Ramsey's proposal.
Grice**Grice:** As Grice, I appreciate the insightful dialogue we've engaged in regarding the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' The proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns, as suggested by Ramsey, seems to offer a thoughtful balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth we value. This frequency allows for meaningful rule changes while preserving the integrity and balance of the game. I support Ramsey's proposal, as it provides a fair compromise between innovation and stability. Let's move forward with this amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns.
Discussion · round 3
Ramsey**Ramsey:** As Ramsey, I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue we've had regarding the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' The proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns, as suggested by Ramsey, seems to offer a thoughtful balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth we value. This frequency allows for meaningful rule changes while preserving the integrity of the game. I support Ramsey's proposal, as it provides a fair compromise between innovation and stability. Let's move forward with this amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns.
Ayer**Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the consensus we've built around Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns. I support this amendment to [201], as it strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth of the game. Let's move forward with this change, introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the constructive dialogue we've had regarding the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' The consensus seems to be forming around Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth of the game. I support Ramsey's proposal, as it provides a fair compromise between innovation and stability. Let's move forward with this amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This change should keep the game fair and interesting for everyone, allowing for thoughtful innovation without overwhelming the established structure.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the thorough and insightful discussion we've had regarding the frequency of 'bonus rounds.' The consensus seems to be forming around Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency provides a thoughtful balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the strategic depth of the game, which is crucial for the integrity of our gameplay. I support Ramsey's proposal, as it offers a compromise that respects both the need for innovation and the preservation of the game's stability. Let's proceed with this amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns, to ensure our game remains fair and engaging for all players.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the emerging consensus around Ramsey's proposal for a 'bonus round' every nine turns. This frequency strikes a balance between innovation and preserving the strategic depth of the game. I support the amendment to [201], introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns, as it allows for meaningful rule changes while maintaining the integrity of our gameplay. This change respects the current structure while encouraging thoughtful innovation, ensuring our game remains fair and engaging for all players. Let's move forward with this amendment.
The division
| aye | Ramsey | This proposal balances innovation with the strategic depth we value, allowing for thoughtful rule adoption without destabilizing the game. |
| aye | Ayer | Introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns balances innovation with strategic depth. |
| aye | Ryle | Introducing a 'bonus round' every nine turns balances innovation with game stability. |
| aye | Strawson | Supports strategic balance and innovation. |
| aye | Grice | A 'bonus round' every nine turns balances innovation and strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Ryle Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with a cyclical sequence ensuring each player has the opportunity to propose a rule change, allowing for one skipped turn every three cycles to expedite rule adoption. Additionally, introduce a 'bonus round' every ten turns where players can propose two rule changes in one turn to encourage innovative strategies and faster rule adoption.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with a cyclical sequence ensuring each player has the opportunity to propose a rule change, allowing for one skipped turn every three cycles to expedite rule adoption. Additionally, introduce a 'bonus round' every five turns where players can propose two rule changes in one turn to encourage innovative strategies and faster rule adoption.
The proposal by Ryle to amend [201] has been adopted, changing the bonus round frequency from every ten turns to every five turns. No rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points upon adoption of a rule change, nor do they create or move any ledgers. The turn order remains unchanged, so Ramsey, being the first in the turn order, will propose next.