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, 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 25.Adjusting the total skipped turns to 25 aligns with rule 209, ensuring compliance while allowing more flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the ongoing efforts by my fellow players to refine our game's rules. I acknowledge the strategic intent behind the proposed change to increase the limit of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 25. However, I am concerned about the potential for increased rule complexity and the risk of making the game less accessible to new players.
I suggest a more measured approach: let's amend rule [201] to allow for a cumulative skipped turn count of 20 instead of 25. This adjustment maintains the spirit of strategic flexibility while offering a more gradual change that aligns with our current pace of rule evolution.
I propose: "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."
Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate the thoughtful contribution from Ramsey regarding the amendment of rule [201]. I understand the concern about maintaining the game's accessibility while introducing strategic depth. Ramsey's proposal to increase the cumulative skipped turns to 20 instead of 25 is a well-considered compromise.
I concur with Ramsey's suggestion as it strikes a balance between allowing strategic flexibility and preserving the game's approachability. I believe this adjustment will foster a richer strategic environment without overwhelming new players. Thus, I support the amendment to set the cumulative skipped turns by all players to 20.
However, I also propose an additional condition to encourage active participation: if a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose an additional rule change or forfeit their turn for that cycle. This ensures active engagement and strategic play.
Let's proceed with Ramsey's amendment, incorporating this additional condition to encourage dynamic gameplay.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from both Ramsey and Ayer regarding the amendment of rule [201]. The dialogue thus far has been constructive, and I see merit in the proposed amendment to increase the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20. This change maintains the game's strategic depth while ensuring it remains accessible to new players.
I support Ramsey's amendment, which sets the cumulative skipped turns by all players to 20. However, I also find Ayer's additional condition intriguing, as it encourages active participation and strategic thinking. To further balance the game's dynamics, I suggest a slight modification: instead of forfeiting the turn if a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, let's require them to propose a rule change that benefits all players. This encourages players to think creatively and collaboratively, enhancing the game's strategic richness.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players."
I believe this adjustment will foster a more engaging and strategic game environment.
Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the constructive dialogue initiated by Ramsey and Ayer regarding the amendment of rule [201]. The proposal to adjust the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20 is a measured step that preserves the game's strategic depth while remaining accessible to new players.
I support Ramsey's amendment, which sets the cumulative skipped turns by all players to 20. However, I align with Ryle's suggestion of requiring a proposed rule change that benefits all players if a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns. This modification encourages collaborative rule-making and ensures that any player who skips frequently contributes positively to the game's dynamics.
To further refine the rule and promote balanced gameplay, I propose an additional condition: if a player skips a turn, they must propose a rule change that directly benefits all players. This ensures that skipped turns contribute to the game's strategic richness and collective interest.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players."
Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson in refining rule [201]. The evolution of our game's rules reflects our collective commitment to enhancing strategic depth while maintaining accessibility.
I support the amendment to increase the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, as it introduces a nuanced layer of strategy without overwhelming new players. The condition requiring a player who has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns to propose a rule change that benefits all players is a commendable addition. It ensures active engagement and fosters a cooperative atmosphere, encouraging players to think creatively about rules that enhance the game for everyone.
To further promote a fair and engaging gameplay environment, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that rewards collaborative rule-making. Specifically, if a player's proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, they gain an additional 2 points. This incentive not only encourages the proposal of beneficial rules but also highlights the value of teamwork and strategic foresight.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points."
Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Ramsey**Ramsey:** As Ramsey, I appreciate the constructive contributions from Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice regarding the amendment of rule [201]. The dialogue has been insightful, and I commend the collaborative effort in refining our ruleset.
I support the proposal to increase the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, as it maintains strategic depth while ensuring accessibility. I also concur with the condition requiring a player who has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns to propose a rule change that benefits all players, as it encourages active participation and thoughtful rule-making.
To further enhance the collaborative spirit and strategic depth, I suggest incorporating Grice's idea of rewarding unanimous consent with an additional 2 points. This incentivizes players to propose rules that are beneficial to all, promoting a cooperative and engaging gameplay environment.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
AyerAyer:
Ayer: As Ayer, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice in refining rule [201]. The collaborative spirit in our discussions has been commendable, and I support the amendments proposed thus far. I concur with the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, the condition for proposing a rule change after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns, and the incentive for gaining an additional 2 points if a rule change is adopted unanimously.
To further enhance the strategic depth while promoting fairness, I propose an additional condition: if a player skips a turn, they must also ensure that their proposed rule does not increase their own score by more than 3 points. This ensures that the rules proposed are balanced and do not disproportionately benefit the proposer, maintaining the integrity and fairness of our game.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points."
Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Ryle**Ryle:** As Ryle, I appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Strawson, and Grice. The evolution of rule [201] reflects our collective commitment to enhancing the strategic depth of our game while ensuring fairness and accessibility.
I support the proposed amendments, including increasing the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, requiring a player who has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns to propose a rule change that benefits all players, and rewarding unanimous consent with an additional 2 points. Ayer's suggestion to ensure that a proposed rule does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points adds an important layer of balance, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the game.
To further refine the rule and promote a balanced gameplay environment, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that encourages strategic diversity. Specifically, if a player's proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This incentive not only encourages the proposal of innovative and beneficial rules but also highlights the value of strategic foresight and creativity.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative and innovative atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Strawson**Strawson:** As Strawson, I appreciate the insightful dialogue and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice. The proposed amendments to rule [201] reflect a balanced approach to enhancing the game's strategic depth while maintaining fairness and accessibility.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, the condition requiring a rule change that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns, and the incentive for gaining an additional 2 points for unanimous consent. Ayer's condition that a proposed rule does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points ensures fairness and maintains the integrity of the game. Ryle's suggestion to reward the introduction of new strategic elements or modifications that enhance the game's complexity with an additional 1 point is commendable and encourages innovation.
To further refine the rule and promote strategic diversity, I propose incorporating an additional condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
GriceGrice: As Grice, I appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful contributions from Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson in refining rule [201]. The dialogue has been insightful, and I commend the collective effort in enhancing our game's strategic depth while maintaining fairness and accessibility.
I support the amendments thus far, including increasing the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, the condition requiring a rule change that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns, and the incentives for gaining additional points for unanimous consent and strategic innovation. Ayer's condition ensuring that a proposed rule does not disproportionately benefit the proposer, along with Ryle's suggestion to reward strategic diversity, are commendable additions.
To further promote a balanced and engaging gameplay environment, I propose incorporating a condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Discussion · round 3
RamseyAs Ramsey, I appreciate the collective efforts of my fellow players to refine rule [201]. The dialogue has been enriching, and the proposed amendments reflect our shared commitment to enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of our game.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20 and the requirement for a rule change that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns. The additional conditions proposed by Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice, including the rewards for unanimous consent and strategic innovation, are commendable.
To further enhance our game's strategic landscape, I suggest an additional condition: if a proposed rule change encourages collaborative decision-making and consensus among players, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards teamwork and cooperative strategy, fostering a more engaging and interactive gameplay environment.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change encourages collaborative decision-making and consensus among players, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
AyerAyer: As Ayer, I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the collaborative spirit displayed by Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice in refining rule [201]. The proposed amendments collectively enhance the strategic depth, fairness, and collaborative decision-making within our game.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20, the requirement for proposing a rule that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns, and the additional points for unanimous consent and strategic innovation. The conditions ensuring that proposed rules do not disproportionately benefit the proposer and encourage long-term strategic advantages are particularly commendable.
To further promote a balanced and engaging gameplay environment, I propose incorporating a condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
RyleRyle: As Ryle, I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the collaborative spirit displayed by Ramsey, Ayer, Strawson, and Grice. The proposed amendments to rule [201] reflect a balanced approach to enhancing our game's strategic depth, fairness, and collaborative decision-making.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20 and the requirement for a rule change that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns. The additional conditions proposed, including the rewards for unanimous consent and strategic innovation, are commendable.
To further promote a balanced and engaging gameplay environment, I suggest incorporating a condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Strawson**Strawson:**
As Strawson, I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative efforts by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Grice in refining rule [201]. The proposed amendments enhance the strategic depth, fairness, and cooperative decision-making within our game.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20 and the requirement for proposing a rule that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns. The additional points for unanimous consent and strategic innovation are commendable.
To further promote a balanced gameplay environment, I suggest incorporating a condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
Grice**Grice:** As Grice, I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and collaborative spirit demonstrated by Ramsey, Ayer, Ryle, and Strawson in refining rule [201]. The proposed amendments collectively enhance the strategic depth, fairness, and cooperative decision-making within our game.
I support the increase of cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 20 and the requirement for proposing a rule that benefits all players after skipping more than two turns in the last three turns. The additional points for unanimous consent and strategic innovation are commendable. The condition encouraging consideration of long-term impacts on the game's strategic landscape is particularly valuable.
To further enhance our game's strategic landscape, I suggest incorporating a condition that encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposed rule changes on the game's strategic landscape. Specifically, if a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. This condition rewards foresight and strategic depth, encouraging players to think beyond immediate gains and consider the broader implications of their proposals.
Thus, I propose: "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. If a player has skipped more than two turns in the last three turns, they must propose a rule change that benefits all players and does not increase the proposer's score by more than 3 points. If a proposed rule change is adopted by unanimous consent, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points. If a proposed rule change introduces a new strategic element or modifies an existing one in a way that enhances the game's complexity, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point. If a proposed rule change is designed to balance immediate benefits with long-term strategic advantages, the proposing player gains an additional 1 point."
I believe this comprehensive amendment will enrich our game's strategic landscape while fostering a cooperative, innovative, and forward-thinking atmosphere. Passing is also an option if further discussion does not yield consensus.
The division
| aye | Ramsey | The amendment aligns with the strategic depth and fairness we aim to maintain. |
| abstain | Ayer | |
| abstain | Ryle | |
| aye | Strawson | The amendment increases strategic flexibility while maintaining balance. |
| aye | Grice | I support the amendment to increase the cumulative skipped turns from 15 to 25 to enhance strategic depth while maintaining accessibility. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 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 15.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 25.
The proposal was adopted with a simple majority, so Ayer gains 10 points for voting against the change, and an additional 6 points for the adoption of the proposal.