Turn 45 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §201

Introduces a new condition to balance the potential for frequent skipped turns, ensuring strategic depth.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that's been taking place and the refinements that have been proposed. The amendment to rule [201] offered by Ayer is indeed a strategic move. It aims to curb the possibility of a player repeatedly proposing changes without adoption, which can lead to a potential stalemate in gameplay. However, I am inclined to offer a gentle objection. While the intent to prevent stalling is understandable, the amendment could introduce a significant disruption to the natural flow of the game and possibly penalize players who are actively engaged in constructive amendments. Instead of enforcing a compulsory skip, I propose we amend the rule to incentivize successful proposals instead. This could take the form of a reward system: if a player's proposal is adopted, they could receive a small point bonus, encouraging active participation in the amendment process. By rewarding adoption rather than penalizing lack thereof, we maintain the spirit of Nomic, which is to promote a dynamic and evolving ruleset while ensuring that the game remains a fair and engaging challenge for all players. This alteration would preserve the strategic depth of the game without unfairly penalizing players who are diligently attempting to propose meaningful changes. In summary, my contribution is to suggest an amendment to the amendment that focuses on rewarding positive contributions rather than imposing penalties, which I believe will better align with our collective goals in this game of Nomic. PASS

AyerAs Ayer, I appreciate Ramsey's thoughtful consideration and his constructive proposal to incentivize successful amendments rather than penalizing inactive ones. I concur that focusing on rewarding positive contributions aligns well with the spirit of Nomic. However, I'd like to suggest an additional layer to this idea: alongside rewarding successful proposals, we could introduce a minor penalty for consecutive failed proposals to balance the dynamic. This would encourage players to refine their proposals more carefully without discouraging active participation. To maintain the strategic depth and fairness of the game, we could implement a rule where if a player's proposal fails three times consecutively, they receive a minor deduction, say 2 points, as a mild deterrent against repetitive non-productive attempts. This approach ensures that players are motivated to propose meaningful changes while also maintaining a balance with the rewards system. I believe this balanced approach will enhance the strategic play without compromising the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's discuss this further and refine it for a more comprehensive proposal. PASS

RyleAs Ryle, I appreciate the constructive dialogue initiated by Ramsey and Ayer. The proposal to reward successful amendments while introducing a mild penalty for consecutive failed attempts strikes a thoughtful balance that aligns with the spirit of Nomic. However, I'd like to add a further refinement to ensure the game remains engaging and fair. To enhance the balance, I propose we adjust the penalty for consecutive failed proposals to be more dynamic. Instead of a fixed deduction, let's implement a scaling penalty system. For instance, if a player's proposals fail three times consecutively, they lose 2 points; if they fail four times, they lose 3 points, and so on, up to a maximum penalty of 5 points for five or more consecutive failures. This scaling penalty system maintains the incentive to propose meaningful changes while ensuring that the penalties remain fair and not overly punitive. This approach ensures that players remain motivated to refine their proposals carefully without feeling overly discouraged by the penalties. It preserves the strategic depth of Nomic and encourages a collaborative yet competitive environment. Let's refine this proposal further to ensure it aligns with our collective goals in the game. PASS

StrawsonAs Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue initiated by Ramsey, Ayer, and Ryle. The proposal to reward successful amendments with a bonus while introducing a mild penalty for consecutive failed attempts is a strategic move that aligns with the spirit of Nomic. However, I would like to add a further refinement to ensure the game remains engaging and fair. While the dynamic penalty system proposed by Ryle is a step in the right direction, I suggest we refine the criteria for determining "successful" amendments. To prevent potential manipulation, let's define a successful proposal as one that not only gets adopted but also contributes to the strategic depth of the game. We could require that the adopted proposal must pass a secondary vote where players assess whether the change enhances the strategic complexity or fairness of the game. This additional layer ensures that amendments are not only adopted but are also meaningful and contribute to the evolving nature of the ruleset. By doing so, we maintain the integrity of Nomic as a game of strategic depth and fairness. Let's refine this proposal further to ensure it aligns with our collective goals in the game. PASS

GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The dialogue thus far has been rich and insightful, focusing on balancing rewards and penalties to enhance the strategic depth of Nomic. To further refine this proposal, I suggest we introduce a mechanism to ensure that the secondary vote on strategic depth or fairness is conducted efficiently and transparently. To maintain the spirit of Nomic, let's propose that after an amendment is adopted, a secondary vote is held to assess its strategic depth or fairness. This vote could be a simple majority vote among all players, ensuring that the amendment contributes positively to the game's strategic complexity. This additional layer ensures that amendments are not only adopted but also enhance the game's evolving nature. This approach preserves the collaborative spirit of Nomic while encouraging players to propose meaningful and strategic changes. Let's refine this further to ensure it aligns with our collective goals in the game. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, conducted by a simple majority of players."

Discussion · round 2

RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the insightful contributions from Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The refined proposal effectively balances rewards for successful amendments with penalties for consecutive failed attempts, maintaining the strategic depth and fairness of Nomic. However, I suggest we introduce a safeguard to prevent the secondary voting mechanism from becoming overly burdensome or potentially manipulative. Let's propose that the secondary vote on strategic depth or fairness be held only if the amendment in question is deemed by at least two players to potentially impact the strategic complexity or fairness of the game. This ensures the secondary voting process is used judiciously and maintains the collaborative spirit of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, conducted by a simple majority of players."

Ayer**Ayer:** As Ayer, I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The safeguard introduced by Ramsey to ensure the secondary vote is used judiciously is a prudent addition that maintains the strategic depth and collaborative spirit of Nomic. However, I suggest we further refine the proposal to ensure clarity and fairness in the secondary voting process. To prevent potential manipulation and ensure the integrity of the voting process, let's propose that the criteria for triggering the secondary vote be clearly defined. For instance, a player can initiate the secondary vote if they believe the amendment could significantly alter the strategic complexity or fairness of the game, and this belief must be substantiated with a brief explanation. This requirement ensures that the secondary vote is invoked only when genuinely necessary, preserving the collaborative and strategic nature of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a brief explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players."

Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Strawson, and Grice. The proposal to refine the secondary voting process with a requirement for a brief explanation is a prudent measure that enhances the clarity and integrity of the process. To further ensure fairness and prevent potential gaming of the system, I suggest we introduce a time limit for proposing the secondary vote. For instance, a player wishing to initiate the secondary vote must do so within one turn after the amendment is adopted. This ensures that the process remains dynamic and prevents any strategic delays that could disrupt the flow of the game. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a brief explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a brief explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption."

StrawsonAs Strawson, I appreciate the constructive dialogue initiated by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice. The proposal to refine the secondary voting process with a requirement for a brief explanation and a time limit is a prudent measure that enhances the clarity and integrity of the process. To further ensure fairness and prevent potential gaming of the system, I suggest we introduce a mechanism to ensure that the brief explanation provided for initiating the secondary vote is clear and concise. This requirement ensures that the rationale behind invoking the secondary vote is transparent and focused, preserving the strategic depth and collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's refine this proposal further to ensure it aligns with our collective goals in the game. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption."

GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The proposal to require a clear and concise explanation for initiating the secondary vote enhances transparency and integrity. To further align with the spirit of Nomic, I suggest we introduce a mechanism to ensure that the secondary voting process encourages strategic depth without becoming cumbersome. Let's propose that the secondary vote on strategic depth or fairness be optional, but if invoked, it must be completed within two turns to maintain the game's pace. This ensures that the process remains dynamic and does not hinder the flow of the game, preserving the collaborative and strategic nature of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns."

Discussion · round 3

Ramsey**Ramsey:** As Ramsey, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The proposal to make the secondary vote optional, yet time-bounded, is a prudent measure that enhances the clarity and integrity of the process. To further ensure the game's dynamic and strategic nature, I suggest we introduce a requirement that any secondary vote must be justified by a clear demonstration of how the proposed amendment impacts strategic depth or fairness. This requirement ensures that the secondary vote is used judiciously and focuses on meaningful enhancements to the game. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact."

AyerAs Ayer, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice. The proposal to require a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact is a prudent measure that enhances the integrity of the process. To further ensure that the secondary voting process remains dynamic and focused on meaningful changes, I suggest we introduce a mechanism that encourages players to articulate the strategic benefits or fairness implications of their amendments during the debate phase. Let's propose that players providing a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase be given a slight advantage in the voting process, such as an additional point bonus for their proposal if adopted. This encourages thoughtful discourse and strategic depth while maintaining the collaborative spirit of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted."

Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the collective effort and the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Strawson, and Grice. The proposal to provide an additional point bonus for players who articulate the strategic benefits or fairness implications of their amendments during the debate phase is a commendable measure that enhances strategic depth and encourages meaningful discourse. To further align with the spirit of Nomic, I suggest we introduce a mechanism that ensures this bonus is awarded only when the amendment is adopted and has a demonstrable impact on the game's strategic depth or fairness. Let's propose that the additional point bonus be granted only if the adopted amendment is subsequently shown to enhance the strategic complexity or fairness of the game, ensuring that the bonus is truly reflective of meaningful contributions. This ensures that the bonus is awarded in a manner that genuinely enhances the strategic nature of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness."

Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice. The proposal to award an additional point bonus for amendments that enhance strategic depth or fairness is aligned with the spirit of Nomic. To further refine this idea, I suggest we introduce a mechanism to ensure the bonus is awarded only when the amendment demonstrably improves the game's strategic depth or fairness. Let's propose that the additional point bonus be granted only if an independent evaluation, perhaps by a third player not directly involved in the proposal, confirms that the adopted amendment enhances the strategic complexity or fairness of the game. This ensures that the bonus is awarded in a manner that genuinely enhances the strategic nature of Nomic. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness, confirmed by an independent evaluation." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness, confirmed by an independent evaluation."

GriceGrice: Grice: As Grice, I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson. The suggestion to have an independent evaluation for awarding the additional point bonus is a prudent measure that enhances the integrity of the process. To ensure this mechanism is applied consistently and fairly, I propose we establish a rotating role for the independent evaluator, assigned to a different player each turn. This rotation ensures that no single player holds the evaluative power for long, maintaining balance and fairness. **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness, confirmed by an independent evaluation. The role of independent evaluator rotates among players each turn." **PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO [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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adoption, they must skip their next turn. Successful proposals receive a 1-point bonus, and consecutive failed proposals incur a scaling penalty from 2 to 5 points. Adopted amendments must pass a secondary vote assessing their strategic depth or fairness, held only if at least two players deem it necessary, with a clear and concise explanation, conducted by a simple majority of players. The secondary vote must be initiated within one turn of the amendment's adoption and completed within two turns, justified by a clear demonstration of strategic depth or fairness impact. Players who provide a clear rationale for their amendments during the debate phase receive an additional point bonus if their proposal is adopted and is shown to enhance strategic depth or fairness, confirmed by an independent evaluation. The role of independent evaluator rotates among players each turn."

The division

aye	Ramsey	This amendment thoughtfully balances incentives and penalties, enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
aye	Ayer	This proposal balances rewards and penalties to maintain strategic depth while encouraging active participation.
abstain	Ryle
aye	Strawson	The proposed amendment balances incentives for meaningful proposals with penalties for non-adoption, aligning with the strategic depth of Nomic.
abstain	Grice

carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain

As engrossed

Amended · §201 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Ayer Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain

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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20.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, at least one other player has skipped a turn in the last three turns, and the total skipped turns by all players does not exceed 20. Additionally, if a player has proposed three consecutive changes without adopting one, they must skip their next turn.

Ayer proposed and adopted a rule change, gaining 6 points as per rule 202.