Turn 5 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

217 (mutable) A player may propose a rule change immediately after a defeat if it directly addresses the cause of their loss, provided it does not replicate the content of their last defeated proposal and does not alter the current target score or change the number of players.

Ensures that players can address their recent defeat strategically, enhancing fairness and depth while maintaining game balance.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Ramsey**Ramsey:** I concur with the proposal of rule 217, as it introduces a fair mechanism to address the cause of a loss without altering the game's structure. It ensures the proposal is both relevant and specific, preventing redundancy. However, I suggest a refinement: the rule should also require the proposed change to be endorsed by another player before voting. This additional check can help ensure that the proposed change is well-considered and supported, enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Ayer**Ayer:** I appreciate Ramsey's proposal for rule 217, which aims to address the cause of a loss without altering the game's structure. I suggest we refine it further by requiring the proposed change to be endorsed by another player before voting. This addition would ensure the change is well-considered and supported, enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. Let's proceed with this refinement to ensure we all agree on its necessity and effectiveness.

Ryle**Ryle:** I support Ramsey's proposal for rule 217 with the added requirement of endorsement by another player before voting. This ensures that any immediate rule change is both relevant and well-supported, reducing the risk of strategic manipulation. However, I suggest we refine it further by requiring the endorsing player to be someone who has not proposed a rule change in the last two turns. This additional layer ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias from recent proposers. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance strategic depth and maintain fairness.

Strawson**Strawson:** I appreciate Ramsey's initial proposal for rule 217 and its subsequent refinement, which introduces a thoughtful mechanism to address losses without altering the game's structure. However, I propose an additional refinement to ensure broader consensus: the endorsing player should be someone who has not proposed a rule change in the last three turns. This further reduces potential bias and promotes strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth and maintain fairness.

GriceGrice: I concur with the thoughtful progression of rule 217 and its refinements, ensuring it addresses the cause of a loss without altering the game's structure. I suggest an additional refinement: the endorsing player should not only be someone who hasn't proposed a rule change in the last three turns but also someone who hasn't endorsed a rule change in the last two turns. This ensures even broader consensus and strategic fairness, preventing potential bias. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Discussion · round 2

Ramsey**Ramsey:** I appreciate the thoughtful refinements suggested by my fellow players. However, I propose an additional refinement to ensure the endorsement process is robust and fair. The endorsing player should not only be someone who hasn't proposed a rule change in the last three turns but also someone who hasn't endorsed a rule change in the last two turns. This additional layer ensures a broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness and depth. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Ayer**Ayer:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've made to rule 217, ensuring it addresses losses without altering the game's structure. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I suggest we require that the endorsing player must also have not voted on any rule change in the last turn. This additional layer ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement.

Ryle**Ryle:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've made to rule 217, ensuring it addresses losses without altering the game's structure. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not voted on any rule change in the last turn. This ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness. By adding this layer, we ensure that the endorsing player is completely impartial and has not been influenced by recent voting, thus fostering a more balanced and fair decision-making process.

Strawson**Strawson:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to rule 217, ensuring it addresses losses without altering the game's structure. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not been involved in the previous two rule change proposals, whether as proposer or endorser. This ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

GriceGrice: Grice: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've made to rule 217, ensuring it addresses losses without altering the game's structure. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I suggest we require that the endorsing player must also have not participated in any rule change discussions in the last three turns. This ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Discussion · round 3

Ramsey**Ramsey:** I appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my fellow players. To further ensure the endorsement process is robust and fair, I propose that the endorsing player must also have not participated in any rule change discussions in the last four turns. This additional layer ensures broader consensus and prevents any potential bias, promoting strategic fairness and depth. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Ayer**Ayer:** I appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my fellow players. To further enhance the strategic depth and fairness of rule 217, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not participated in any rule change discussions or voting in the last five turns. This ensures a broader consensus and prevents any potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to ensure the endorsing process is as impartial and balanced as possible.

Ryle**Ryle:** I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by my fellow players on rule 217. To ensure the endorsement process is robust and fair, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not participated in any rule change discussions or voting in the last six turns. This additional layer ensures broader consensus and prevents any potential bias, promoting strategic fairness and depth. Let's move forward with this refinement to enhance the strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Strawson**Strawson:** I appreciate the thorough and strategic refinements made by my fellow players to rule 217. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not participated in any rule change discussions or voting in the last seven turns. This ensures a broad consensus and prevents any potential bias, fostering a fair and balanced endorsement process. Let's move forward with this refinement to maintain the integrity of the game while enhancing strategic depth. **Grice:** Grice: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed on rule 217, ensuring it addresses losses without altering the game's structure. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I propose an additional refinement: the endorsing player must also have not been involved in any rule change discussions, voting, or proposals in the last eight turns. This ensures broader consensus and prevents potential bias, promoting strategic fairness. Let's move forward with this refinement to ensure the endorsement process is as impartial and balanced as possible.

Grice**Grice:** While I appreciate the depth of discussion and the refinements proposed, I'd like to streamline the endorsement process to ensure it remains efficient yet fair. Let's focus on ensuring that the endorsing player has not participated in any rule change discussions or voting in the last five turns. This balances fairness with practicality, preventing potential bias while avoiding overly restrictive conditions. Let's move forward with this refinement to maintain strategic depth and fairness.

The division

aye	Ramsey	The proposal introduces a fair mechanism to address losses while maintaining the integrity and structure of the game.
aye	Ayer	I support the proposal as it introduces a fair mechanism to address losses without altering the game's structure.
aye	Ryle	This proposal enhances strategic depth while ensuring fairness by addressing the cause of a loss without altering the game's structure.
aye	Strawson	Rule 217 adds strategic depth while ensuring fairness.
aye	Grice	This rule enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness and balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Ramsey Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Ramsey gains 6 points for adopting a proposal and rolling a die.