Turn 10 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

311 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, and the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn.

This proposal ensures fairness and strategic depth by allowing immediate responses to losses while preventing repetitive proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

RamseyI appreciate Ayer's proposal for rule 311. It thoughtfully extends the existing framework for post-defeat proposals while ensuring that it does not allow for repetitive or game-altering changes. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposer must wait for at least one full turn cycle before proposing a rule change again, ensuring that players cannot exploit the rule for immediate gain. This maintains strategic depth and fairness in gameplay.

AyerAyer: I appreciate Ramsey's suggestion to ensure fairness in the post-defeat proposal process. To build on Ramsey's idea, I propose adding a clause that requires the new rule to be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote. This adds an extra layer of scrutiny, ensuring that the proposal is well-considered and not just a reaction to a defeat. This should help maintain the strategic integrity of the game while allowing for responsive rule changes. --- **Ayer's Proposal for Rule 311:** "311 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn, and must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote."

Ryle**Ryle:** I appreciate Ayer's thoughtful proposal for rule 311 and Ramsey's enhancement to ensure fairness and strategic depth. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposer must not only wait for at least one full turn cycle before proposing a rule change again, but also that the proposed rule change must not directly counteract the last rule change that was adopted. This ensures that players cannot cycle through proposals to undo the progress of the game. This refinement maintains the integrity of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful rule changes. **Ryle:** The addition of a condition that the proposed rule change must not directly counteract the last adopted rule change will prevent players from cyclically negating each other's successful proposals. This maintains the strategic depth and fairness of the game, encouraging players to think more critically about the long-term implications of their proposed rule changes.

Strawson**Strawson:** I appreciate the contributions from Ayer, Ramsey, and Ryle regarding the proposal for rule 311. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule must be relevant to the current state of play and not merely a reaction to the most recent defeat. This ensures that rule changes are made with a view to enhancing the overall strategy and fairness of the game, rather than exploiting specific situations. Additionally, I propose that the rule change must not undermine the core mechanics of the game, preserving its fundamental nature. **Strawson:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are meaningful and contribute to the strategic depth of the game, preventing players from making arbitrary or disruptive proposals. By focusing on the relevance and core mechanics, we maintain the integrity and balance of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful rule changes.

GriceGrice: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Ayer, Ramsey, Ryle, and Strawson regarding rule 311. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not only be relevant to the current state of play but also promote fairness and inclusivity. This ensures that rule changes enhance the game's competitive balance, allowing all players to engage meaningfully. Additionally, I propose that the rule change must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, maintaining the spirit of fair competition. **Grice:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are not only strategic but also equitable, preserving the game's integrity and encouraging a fair playing field. By focusing on fairness and inclusivity, we maintain the core principles of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful rule changes.

Discussion · round 2

Ramsey**Ramsey:** I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 311. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote. This ensures that the proposal is well-considered and not just a reaction to a defeat. Additionally, to maintain strategic depth and fairness, I propose that any new rule change must not only address the cause of a loss but also contribute to the overall strategic objectives of the game. This will prevent players from making changes that are advantageous in the short term but detrimental in the long term.

AyerPASS. I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 311. The proposal has been thoughtfully enhanced to ensure fairness and strategic depth, maintaining the integrity of the game while allowing for responsive rule changes. I see no further refinements necessary at this stage.

Ryle**Ryle:** I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 311. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not only address the cause of a loss but also be consistent with the overarching strategic objectives of the game. This ensures that any new rule change contributes to the long-term balance and fairness of the game, preventing players from making changes that are advantageous in the short term but detrimental in the long term. Additionally, I propose that the rule change must not disrupt the established turn order, preserving the integrity of the game's structure. **Ryle:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are not only responsive but also aligned with the game's strategic objectives, maintaining its balance and fairness while allowing for thoughtful and meaningful adjustments.

StrawsonStrawson: **Strawson:** I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 311. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not only be consistent with the strategic objectives of the game but also ensure that it does not introduce complexity that undermines the clarity and simplicity of gameplay. This ensures that while the game remains strategically deep, it remains accessible and enjoyable for all players. Additionally, I propose that any new rule change must be phrased clearly and unambiguously to prevent misinterpretations that could lead to disputes or confusion during play. **Strawson:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are meaningful, strategic, and clear, maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful adjustments.

GriceGrice: Grice: I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining rule 311. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not introduce any complexity that undermines the accessibility and clarity of gameplay. This ensures that while the game remains strategically deep, it remains accessible and enjoyable for all players. Additionally, I propose that the rule change must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops, preserving the dynamic and fluid nature of the game. **Grice:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are meaningful, strategic, and clear, maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful adjustments.

Discussion · round 3

Ramsey**Ramsey:** I appreciate the comprehensive discussions and contributions from Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice regarding rule 311. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not introduce any complexity that undermines the accessibility and clarity of gameplay. This ensures that the game remains strategically deep while accessible to all players. Additionally, I propose that any new rule change must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops, preserving the dynamic and fluid nature of the game. **Ramsey:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are meaningful, strategic, and clear, maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the game while allowing for responsive and thoughtful adjustments. --- **Proposal for Rule 312:** "312 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn, must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote, must be relevant to the current state of play, not merely a reaction to the most recent defeat, must promote fairness and inclusivity, must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, must be consistent with the overarching strategic objectives of the game, must not introduce complexity that undermines the clarity and simplicity of gameplay, and must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops."

Ayer**Ayer:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Ramsey, Ryle, Strawson, and Grice regarding rule 312. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must also ensure it does not disrupt the established turn order, preserving the integrity of the game's structure. This ensures that any new rule change maintains the flow of play and does not create unintended disruptions in the sequence of turns, which could lead to confusion or strategic imbalances. **Ayer:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are strategic, clear, and maintain the integrity of the game's turn-based structure, allowing for thoughtful and meaningful adjustments while preserving the established order of play. **Proposal for Rule 312:** "312 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn, must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote, must be relevant to the current state of play, not merely a reaction to the most recent defeat, must promote fairness and inclusivity, must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, must be consistent with the overarching strategic objectives of the game, must not introduce complexity that undermines the clarity and simplicity of gameplay, must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops, and must not disrupt the established turn order." 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:** I appreciate the thorough refinements proposed for rule 312 by Ayer, Ramsey, Strawson, and Grice. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must also ensure it does not introduce any ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation during gameplay. This ensures that rule changes remain clear and unambiguous, preserving the integrity and clarity of the game. Additionally, I propose that any new rule change must not compromise the game's fundamental fairness by allowing loopholes or unintended advantages, maintaining the spirit of fair competition. **Ryle:** This refinement ensures that rule changes are strategic, clear, and maintain the integrity and fairness of the game, allowing for thoughtful and meaningful adjustments while preserving the core principles of fair play. **Proposal for Rule 313:** "313 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn, must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote, must be relevant to the current state of play, not merely a reaction to the most recent defeat, must promote fairness and inclusivity, must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, must be consistent with the overarching strategic objectives of the game, must not introduce complexity that undermines the clarity and simplicity of gameplay, must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops, must not disrupt the established turn order, and must not introduce ambiguity or loopholes that could lead to misinterpretation or unfair advantages." 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:** I appreciate the thorough refinements proposed for rule 313 by Ayer, Ryle, Ramsey, and Grice. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not undermine the established mutability-immutability balance, ensuring that it does not inadvertently render any mutable rule permanently immutable or vice versa. This maintains the dynamic nature of the game, allowing for responsive adjustments while preserving the core mechanics of rule evolution. **Strawson:** This refinement ensures that rule changes respect the fundamental structure of the game, maintaining its strategic depth and integrity while allowing for thoughtful and meaningful adjustments. **Proposal for Rule 314:** "314 (mutable) A player may propose a new rule change immediately after a defeat if it addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal, does not alter the current target score, the number of players, or significantly alter the scoring mechanism, and does not introduce any new targets or significantly alter the scoring mechanism. Additionally, the proposed rule must not allow for the same rule to be proposed more than once consecutively by the same player, the proposer must not have proposed a rule change in their last turn, must be reviewed by at least two other players before being put to a vote, must be relevant to the current state of play, not merely a reaction to the most recent defeat, must promote fairness and inclusivity, must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, must be consistent with the overarching strategic objectives of the game, must not introduce complexity that undermines the clarity and simplicity of gameplay, must not create dependencies that could lead to stalemates or infinite loops, must not disrupt the established turn order, must not introduce ambiguity or loopholes that could lead to misinterpretation or unfair advantages, and must not undermine the established mutability-immutability balance." 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

Grice**Grice:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed for rule 314 by Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, and Ramsey. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a condition that the proposed rule change must not allow for any alteration to the core gameplay mechanics, such as turn order or the fundamental scoring system, ensuring that the integrity and essence of the game are maintained. This ensures that rule changes do not fundamentally alter the nature of the game, preserving its original intent and strategic depth. **Grice:** This refinement ensures that rule changes respect the fundamental structure of the game, maintaining its strategic depth and integrity while allowing for thoughtful and meaningful adjustments.

The division

aye	Ramsey	The proposed rule 311 enhances the game's strategic depth by allowing responsive rule changes while maintaining fairness and preventing repetitive or game-altering modifications.
aye	Ayer	I support Ayer's proposal for rule 311 as it thoughtfully enhances the game's strategic depth while maintaining fairness and clarity. It addresses potential issues arising from post-defeat rule changes without disrupting the core mechanics of the game.
aye	Ryle	The proposed rule maintains strategic depth and fairness, enhancing the game without altering its fundamental mechanics.
aye	Strawson	The proposal maintains the game's integrity and fairness while allowing responsive rule changes.
aye	Grice	The proposal for rule 311 enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness and the game's core structure.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Ayer Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Ayer gains 6 points for adopting the proposal and throwing a six-sided die.