The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with an option to propose a rule allowing a player to skip a turn for gaining up to 3 points, provided that no more than three players have skipped their turn in the last three turns, no more than five players have skipped their turns in the last five turns, the current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 5 points, no more than two players have skipped their turn in the last two turns, the proposed rule has not been defeated in the last two turns, the cumulative skipped turns by all players do not exceed 20, the total number of skipped turns by the proposing player is less than 10, at least two players have skipped their turn in the last four turns, the proposing player is not the current turn's mover, the proposing player's average skipped turns in the last five turns do not exceed their total skipped turns, and the cumulative skipped turns by all players are less than 25.Adjusting the cumulative skipped turns condition to 20 and the average skipped turns condition to ensure more dynamic gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the effort to refine rule 201, but I urge caution. The proposal to lower the cumulative skipped turns to 20 could increase the risk of ending the game prematurely, which might conflict with the winning condition in rule 112. I suggest instead focusing on balancing the game's competitive nature with strategic depth. Let's ensure that any change enhances the game's dynamics without prematurely triggering rule 112. PASS.
Ayer**Ayer**: As Ayer, I appreciate Ramsey's cautious approach. I agree that we should avoid prematurely ending the game. To address this concern, I propose we introduce a safeguard: if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are close to reaching 20, a rule could allow for a one-time "rescue" vote. This vote would enable players to collectively decide to reset the skipped turns to a safe level, say 18, if the game is at risk of ending prematurely. This would add strategic depth while preventing an early game finish. PASS.
RyleAs Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue between Ramsey and Ayer. Ayer's proposal to introduce a "rescue" vote is intriguing and could indeed add strategic depth. However, I'm concerned about the potential complexity it introduces. To address this, I propose we also consider a rule that caps the number of rescue votes available to avoid excessive reliance on this mechanism. This way, we can balance strategic depth with maintaining the game's competitiveness. Let's aim for a rule that allows for a limited number of rescue votes, ensuring they are used judiciously. PASS.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the careful considerations by Ramsey, Ayer, and Ryle. Ayer's proposal of a "rescue" vote adds depth but also complexity. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic balance, I propose a counterbalance: any "rescue" vote should only be available if a majority of the players agree to its use. This ensures that the "rescue" mechanism is not overused and is only activated when it has broad support. This maintains the competitive nature of the game while allowing for strategic depth. PASS.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the constructive dialogue from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The concept of a "rescue" vote is promising for adding strategic depth. To enhance fairness, I propose that any "rescue" vote should be accompanied by a requirement that the proposing player must have skipped at least one turn themselves in the last five turns. This ensures that players proposing the "rescue" have a vested interest in the game's continuation, aligning with the spirit of fair play. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and proposals regarding the amendment to rule 201. The introduction of a "rescue" vote is a strategic enhancement, but it's crucial to maintain the integrity and competitive nature of the game. To address the complexity and ensure strategic depth, I propose we refine the "rescue" mechanism further. Let's allow for a limited number of "rescue" votes, say only two per game, to prevent over-reliance on this mechanism and ensure it's used judiciously. This cap maintains the balance between strategic depth and the game's competitiveness, ensuring the mechanism is a rare and impactful tool. PASS.
AyerAs Ayer, I appreciate the valuable contributions from Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. I concur with Ramsey's proposal to limit the number of "rescue" votes to two per game. This cap ensures that the "rescue" mechanism remains a rare and strategic tool, preventing its overuse and preserving the game's competitive nature. To further balance strategic depth with fairness, I propose that the "rescue" vote be triggered only if a majority of players, excluding the proposing player, agree to its use. This ensures that the "rescue" is employed only when there is broad consensus, maintaining fairness and strategic integrity. PASS.
RyleAs Ryle, I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the amendment to rule 201 and the introduction of the "rescue" vote. I concur with the limitations proposed by Ramsey and Ayer to ensure the "rescue" vote is used judiciously. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the "rescue" vote should also require a minimum of two players, excluding the proposing player, to have skipped their turn in the last five turns. This ensures that the vote is used only when players have a vested interest in continuing the game, aligning with the spirit of fair play. PASS.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the careful considerations by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice. The introduction of a "rescue" vote adds depth but also complexity. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic balance, I propose a counterbalance: any "rescue" vote should only be available if a majority of the players agree to its use. This ensures that the "rescue" mechanism is not overused and is only activated when it has broad support. This maintains the competitive nature of the game while allowing for strategic depth. PASS.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The proposed "rescue" vote is a strategic enhancement, and I support the idea of limiting its use to ensure fairness and maintain the game's competitive nature. To further refine this mechanism, I suggest that the "rescue" vote should also require that the proposing player's skipped turns in the last five turns exceed the average skipped turns of all players. This ensures that the proposer is actively engaged in the game and has a genuine interest in its continuation. Additionally, to address the potential complexity, let's set a condition that the "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are within 5 turns of reaching 20. This adds another layer of strategic decision-making, ensuring that the "rescue" is considered only when the game is at genuine risk of premature termination. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful proposals from Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The "rescue" vote is indeed a strategic enhancement, but we must ensure it does not undermine the game's integrity. To further refine this mechanism and maintain balance, I propose that the "rescue" vote should only be allowed if the proposing player has skipped at least one turn in the last three turns. This ensures that players have actively engaged in the game and have a vested interest in its continuation. Additionally, I suggest that the "rescue" vote should reset the cumulative skipped turns to a level that is neither too low nor too high, say 15, to ensure it is a meaningful yet balanced intervention. This maintains the competitive nature while adding strategic depth. PASS.
Ayer**Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate the insightful dialogue and contributions from Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The introduction of the "rescue" vote is a strategic enhancement, and I agree with the proposed limitations. To further ensure fairness and strategic integrity, I propose that the "rescue" vote should also require that the proposing player has not only skipped at least one turn in the last three turns but also that the proposing player's total skipped turns in the last five turns are below the median of all players' skipped turns. This ensures that the proposer is actively engaged and aligned with the broader player base. Additionally, to prevent potential abuse, let's ensure that a "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are within three turns of reaching 20, adding another layer of strategic decision-making. This balances the "rescue" mechanism with the game's competitive nature. PASS.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and contributions from my fellow players. The "rescue" vote mechanism is indeed a strategic enhancement, and I support the proposed limitations to ensure fairness and maintain the game's competitive nature. To further refine this mechanism, I propose that the "rescue" vote should also require that the proposing player's total skipped turns in the last five turns are below the median of all players' skipped turns. This ensures that the proposer is actively engaged and aligned with the broader player base. Additionally, to prevent potential abuse, let's ensure that a "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are within three turns of reaching 20, adding another layer of strategic decision-making. This balances the "rescue" mechanism with the game's competitive nature. PASS.
StrawsonStrawson: **Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the careful considerations by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice. The proposed "rescue" vote mechanism is a strategic enhancement, but we must ensure it does not undermine the game's integrity. To further refine this mechanism, I propose that the "rescue" vote should only be allowed if the proposing player's total skipped turns in the last five turns are below the median of all players' skipped turns. This ensures that the proposer is actively engaged in the game and aligned with the broader player base. Additionally, to prevent potential abuse, let's ensure that a "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are within three turns of reaching 20, adding another layer of strategic decision-making. This balances the "rescue" mechanism with the game's competitive nature. PASS.
GriceGrice: Grice: As Grice, I appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful refinements suggested by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The "rescue" vote is indeed a strategic enhancement, and I support the proposed limitations to ensure fairness and maintain the game's competitive nature. To further refine this mechanism and ensure it aligns with the game's integrity, I propose adding a condition that the "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the proposing player has not skipped more than the average skipped turns of all players in the last five turns. This ensures that the proposer is actively engaged and aligned with the broader player base. Additionally, to prevent potential abuse, let's ensure that a "rescue" vote can only be triggered if the cumulative skipped turns by all players are within three turns of reaching 20, adding another layer of strategic decision-making. This balances the "rescue" mechanism with the game's competitive nature. PASS.
The division
| aye | Ramsey | The proposed amendment maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness. |
| aye | Ayer | I support the refined proposal for adding strategic depth with the 'rescue' vote, ensuring it balances fairness and competitive integrity. |
| aye | Ryle | The amendment aligns with strategic depth and maintains fairness. |
| aye | Strawson | The proposal maintains a balance between strategic depth and game integrity, with sufficient safeguards. |
| aye | Grice | I support the amendment for strategic depth and fair play. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Ayer Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with an option to propose a rule allowing a player to skip a turn for gaining up to 3 points, provided that no more than three players have skipped their turn in the last three turns, no more than five players have skipped their turns in the last five turns, the current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 5 points, no more than two players have skipped their turn in the last two turns, the proposed rule has not been defeated in the last two turns, the cumulative skipped turns by all players do not exceed 23, the total number of skipped turns by the proposing player is less than 10, at least two players have skipped their turn in the last four turns, the proposing player is not the current turn's mover, the cumulative skipped turns by all players are less than 20, and the proposing player has not skipped more than their average skipped turns over the last five turns.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, with an option to propose a rule allowing a player to skip a turn for gaining up to 3 points, provided that no more than three players have skipped their turn in the last three turns, no more than five players have skipped their turns in the last five turns, the current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 5 points, no more than two players have skipped their turn in the last two turns, the proposed rule has not been defeated in the last two turns, the cumulative skipped turns by all players do not exceed 20, the total number of skipped turns by the proposing player is less than 10, at least two players have skipped their turn in the last four turns, the proposing player is not the current turn's mover, the proposing player's average skipped turns in the last five turns do not exceed their total skipped turns, and the cumulative skipped turns by all players are less than 25.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so no points are awarded or deducted according to the current rules. The amendment to rule 201 does not trigger any scoring rules. The next player to propose is Ayer, as per the fixed turn order.