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 5 points, only if the proposing player has not skipped in their last two turns and at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns. The current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 10 points, and the proposing player's total score is less than 35, and the number of skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20.This amendment encourages strategic diversity and maintains balance in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and recognize the intentions behind Ayer's proposal to amend rule 201. While I understand the aim to increase strategic diversity and flexibility, I am concerned that this proposal may inadvertently weaken the established balance and fairness of our game. The current rule already provides a careful balance between strategic depth and accessibility.
Specifically, the proposed changes increase the points gained from skipping a turn and relax the conditions on skipped turns and score differences. This could lead to more frequent turn-skipping, potentially disrupting the game's flow and making it less predictable. Moreover, the reduction in the number of turns that can be skipped overall might encourage more frequent skips, which could unbalance the game further.
I propose a more measured amendment: Let's allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the condition that the proposing player has not skipped in their last two turns and at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns. The score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player should remain at or below 15 points, and the proposing player's score should be less than 30, with the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22.
This approach maintains the spirit of strategic flexibility while preserving the integrity and balance of the game. Let us strive for amendments that enhance the game without compromising its core principles. PASS if you agree with this suggestion or propose another amendment that you find more fitting.
Ayer**Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate Ramsey's concerns about maintaining the game's balance and fairness. I agree that the proposed amendment might lead to excessive turn-skipping and disrupt the game's strategic depth. However, I believe that the original proposal's intent was to enhance flexibility and strategic options for players, which can also add depth to the game if carefully managed.
To address these concerns while still increasing the strategic flexibility, I propose a compromise: let's allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn, as Ramsey suggested. Additionally, the proposing player should not have skipped in their last two turns, and at least one other player must have skipped in the last three turns. The current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player should be less than or equal to 15 points, and the proposing player's total score should be less than 30. We should also limit the total number of skipped turns by all players to 22.
This compromise maintains the spirit of strategic diversity while ensuring that the game's balance and fairness are preserved. It allows for strategic turn-skipping without making it overly frequent or disruptive. PASS if you agree with this refined proposal, or suggest further modifications.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue initiated by Ramsey and Ayer regarding the amendment to rule 201. Their concerns about maintaining the game's balance while enhancing strategic depth are valid. I concur with the proposed compromise: allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions set by Ramsey. This adjustment seems to strike a balance between increasing strategic options and preserving the integrity of the game.
However, I would like to suggest an additional condition to ensure the game remains engaging for all players: let's also require that the proposing player has not skipped in their last three turns, instead of two. This slight modification would encourage players to be more strategic about when they choose to skip, adding another layer of decision-making.
In summary, I support the amendment to allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 30, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22.
Let's ensure our game remains both fair and strategically rich. PASS if you agree with this slight modification or propose further adjustments.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the proposed amendments to rule 201. The intention to enhance strategic flexibility while maintaining the game's balance is commendable. Ramsey's and Ayer's amendments are well-reasoned and offer a measured approach to increasing strategic options without compromising fairness.
However, I would like to add a slight adjustment to further ensure that the rule change does not lead to excessive turn-skipping, which could disrupt the game's flow. In addition to the conditions proposed by Ramsey and Ayer, I suggest we also require that the proposing player's score be less than 25 instead of 30. This would make skipping turns a more deliberate decision, encouraging players to consider the long-term implications of their actions on the game's dynamics.
In summary, I support the amendment to allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22.
This adjustment ensures that the game remains engaging and strategically rich, encouraging players to make thoughtful decisions about when to skip a turn. PASS if you agree with this modification, or suggest further refinements.
GriceGrice: **Grice:** As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the constructive amendments proposed by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The proposed amendments aim to enhance strategic flexibility while preserving the game's balance, which aligns with my belief in evolving the game's mechanisms for a fairer stake.
I support the current amendment to allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22. This modification ensures a strategic yet balanced approach to turn-skipping, encouraging players to make thoughtful decisions without disrupting the game's flow.
Furthermore, I would like to propose an additional condition to further refine the rule: let's require that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip. This will ensure that players are actively engaged in the game before opting to skip a turn, thus maintaining active participation and strategic engagement.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip, ensuring active engagement and strategic depth. PASS if you agree with this further refinement or suggest additional adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the constructive dialogue initiated by Ayer and Ryle, and the thoughtful amendments proposed by all. The proposed changes to rule 201 are indeed well-reasoned, aiming to enhance strategic flexibility while maintaining the game's balance. I concur with the current compromise amendment allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions set forth: the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22.
Moreover, I find Grice's suggestion to require the proposing player to have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip to be a prudent addition. This condition ensures active engagement in the game and prevents any potential abuse of the rule, further enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of the game.
In summary, I support the amendment to allow up to 4 points for skipping a turn with the added condition that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip. This ensures active engagement and maintains the integrity of the game. PASS if you agree with this refined proposal, or suggest further refinements.
Ayer**Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful contributions from all players regarding the amendment to rule 201. The proposed changes, especially the addition of requiring the proposing player to have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing a skip, ensure active engagement and strategic depth, which align with the spirit of Nomic.
I concur with the current compromise, which allows up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22.
This amendment strikes a balance between enhancing strategic options and preserving the game's fairness and balance. It encourages thoughtful decision-making without leading to excessive turn-skipping, maintaining the game's strategic richness.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip. This ensures active engagement and strategic depth, keeping the game both fair and engaging. PASS if you agree with this refined proposal, or propose further refinements.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine rule 201, and I support the current amendment proposed by Grice and Ramsey. The conditions set forth—allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22—are well-considered.
Additionally, the requirement that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip is a prudent condition that ensures active engagement and strategic depth. This refinement prevents potential abuse of the rule and maintains the integrity of the game.
I also suggest adding a condition that the proposing player must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns. This ensures that players are not incentivizing skipping turns for immediate strategic gain, thus preserving the game's balance.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns and not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns. This ensures active engagement and strategic integrity. PASS if you agree with this further refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the thorough and collaborative discussion thus far regarding the amendment to rule 201. The proposal, as refined, allows up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the proposing player not having skipped in their last three turns, at least one other player having skipped in the last three turns, the current score difference being less than or equal to 15 points, the proposing player's total score being less than 25, and the total skipped turns by all players not exceeding 22. Additionally, the requirement that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns prior to proposing the skip is a prudent measure that ensures active engagement and strategic depth.
I also support Ryle's additional condition that the proposing player must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns. This condition prevents players from strategically skipping turns solely for immediate gain, thus preserving the game's balance and integrity.
To further refine the rule, I suggest adding a condition that the proposing player must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns combined. This ensures that the proposal to skip a turn is not being made by a player who is currently benefiting from a recent streak of high-point turns, which could potentially exploit the rule for short-term advantage.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, and must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns. These conditions ensure active engagement, strategic integrity, and prevent potential exploitation of the rule. PASS if you agree with this further refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
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
GriceGrice: Grice: **Grice:** As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative efforts in refining rule 201. The proposed amendment, allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn with the conditions set by Ryle and Strawson, enhances strategic flexibility while ensuring active engagement.
I support the additional conditions: the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, and must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns. These conditions ensure that the rule is not exploited for short-term advantage and maintains the integrity and balance of the game.
To further refine the rule, I propose adding a condition that the proposing player must have a total score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points. This condition ensures that the rule is only available to players who are not significantly behind, thus encouraging strategic play without disrupting the balance.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player must have a total score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points. This ensures strategic depth and fairness. PASS if you agree with this refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
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
Discussion · round 3
Ramsey**Ramsey:** As Ramsey, I appreciate the thorough and constructive dialogue we've engaged in thus far. Grice's proposal to ensure the proposing player has a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points is a prudent addition that ensures the rule is used to maintain competitive balance.
I support the proposed amendment allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions set forth by Ryle and Strawson. Additionally, the conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns, and must have a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points, collectively ensure active engagement and strategic integrity.
This comprehensive set of conditions prevents potential exploitation and maintains the fairness and balance of the game, while allowing for increased strategic flexibility. PASS if you agree with this refined proposal, or suggest further refinements.
AyerAyer: **Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort in refining rule 201. The conditions proposed by Grice ensure strategic depth and fairness, maintaining the game's balance while enhancing strategic flexibility.
I support the proposed amendment allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions ensuring active engagement and preventing potential exploitation. The conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns, and must have a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points, collectively ensure fairness and balance.
This comprehensive set of conditions enhances strategic options without disrupting the game's integrity. PASS if you agree with this refined proposal, or suggest further refinements.
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
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful conditions proposed by Grice and Ramsey to refine rule 201. The comprehensive set of conditions ensures active engagement and prevents potential exploitation, maintaining the game's fairness and strategic depth.
I support the proposed amendment allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions ensuring active engagement and preventing potential exploitation. The conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns, and must have a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points, collectively ensure fairness and balance.
To further refine the rule, I suggest adding a condition that the proposing player must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns. This ensures that the rule is not used excessively and maintains strategic integrity.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns. This ensures strategic depth and fairness. PASS if you agree with this further refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
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
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 201. Ryle's suggestion to require that the proposing player must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns adds a prudent condition ensuring the rule is not exploited excessively.
I support the proposal allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn with the conditions ensuring active engagement and preventing potential exploitation: the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns, must have a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points, and must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns.
To further refine, I suggest adding a condition that the total number of turns skipped by the proposing player in the last five turns must not exceed three. This ensures the rule is not used excessively and maintains strategic integrity.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns and not more than three turns in the last five turns. PASS if you agree with this further refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
Grice**Grice:** As Grice, I appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful conditions proposed by Ryle and Strawson to refine rule 201. The comprehensive set of conditions ensures active engagement and prevents potential exploitation, maintaining the game's fairness and strategic depth.
I support the proposed amendment allowing up to 4 points for skipping a turn, with the conditions ensuring active engagement and preventing potential exploitation. The conditions that the proposing player must have participated in at least two turns, must not have gained points from a skipped turn in the last two turns, must have gained no more than 5 points from their last two turns, must have a score difference with the highest scoring player of less than or equal to 10 points, must have skipped at least one turn in the last four turns, and must not have skipped more than three turns in the last five turns, collectively ensure fairness and balance.
To further refine the rule, I suggest adding a condition that the proposing player's total score must be less than 20 points. This ensures that only players who are not leading significantly can propose a skip, maintaining competitive balance.
In summary, I support the amendment with the added condition that the proposing player's total score must be less than 20 points. This ensures strategic depth and fairness. PASS if you agree with this further refinement, or propose additional adjustments.
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
The division
| aye | Ramsey | The proposal ensures strategic depth and fairness with comprehensive conditions for active engagement and balance. |
| aye | Ayer | The proposal introduces strategic depth while maintaining fairness and balance in the game. |
| aye | Ryle | The proposal enhances strategic flexibility while maintaining game balance and fairness. |
| aye | Strawson | The amendment maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness and balance. |
| aye | Grice | I support the amendment as it enhances strategic flexibility while maintaining game balance and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 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, only if the proposing player has not skipped in their last three turns and at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last four turns. The current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 20 points, and the proposing player's total score is less than 40, and the number of skipped turns by all players does not exceed 25.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 5 points, only if the proposing player has not skipped in their last two turns and at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns. The current score difference between the highest and lowest scoring player is less than or equal to 10 points, and the proposing player's total score is less than 35, and the number of skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20.
The amendment to rule 201 does not trigger any scoring rules or ledger changes. The next player to propose is Ayer, as per the turn order.