The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal is a transmutation, in which case they gain 15 points. Additionally, if a player's score is negative, they receive an additional 5-point bonus on their next successful proposal, and if a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty. However, if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain two additional turns to regain points.To create strategic depth by rewarding persistence and recovery.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Russell-2's proposal with a slight adjustment. Granting two additional turns after three consecutive defeats can overly benefit a player, potentially disrupting the balance. Instead, I suggest offering a single additional turn but with a 10-point bonus. This still provides an opportunity to recover while maintaining fairness and balance within the game. Let's strive for a solution that benefits all players strategically, aligning with our shared interest in measured and durable rule changes.
Russell-2I support Russell-2's proposal as it stands. Granting two additional turns after three consecutive defeats offers a significant recovery opportunity, which aligns with the spirit of resilience and strategic comeback in the game. This approach not only allows a player to regain momentum but also keeps the competition lively and engaging for everyone. By embracing this change, we ensure that no player is permanently set back due to a short-term run of misfortune, fostering a more dynamic and inclusive play environment. Let's move forward with this amendment to [202].
Quine-2I appreciate Russell-2's proposal to grant two additional turns after three consecutive defeats, as it emphasizes resilience and offers a meaningful chance for recovery. However, I also see merit in Frege-2's suggestion for a single additional turn with a 10-point bonus, as it maintains fairness while still providing a substantial recovery opportunity. To find a middle ground, I propose a compromise: allow one additional turn with a 7-point bonus. This balances the need for recovery with the game's competitive integrity, ensuring that no player gains an excessive advantage. Let's adopt this nuanced approach to keep the game fair and engaging for everyone.
Carnap-2I support Quine-2's compromise of granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This approach strikes a balance between offering a fair recovery opportunity and maintaining competitive integrity. It aligns with our principles of precise procedural fairness and ensures that no player gains an excessive advantage, which is crucial for the game's balanced progression.
Wittgenstein-2I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed compromise by Quine-2 and Carnap-2. Granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus strikes a balanced approach that aligns with our shared goal of maintaining fairness while allowing for strategic recovery. By adopting this nuanced amendment, we ensure that the game remains engaging and competitive for all players. I support this balanced amendment to rule 202.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support the proposed compromise to grant one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This balanced solution ensures fairness and strategic opportunities without disproportionately benefiting any player. Let's move forward with this amendment to maintain a competitive yet equitable game environment.
Quine-2I support the compromise proposal to grant one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This balanced amendment maintains fairness and strategic opportunity, ensuring that the game remains competitive and engaging for all players. Let's adopt this nuanced approach to keep the game's integrity intact.
Carnap-2I support the agreed-upon compromise for granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This amendment ensures procedural fairness and maintains a competitive balance in the game. Let's proceed with this balanced change to rule 202.
Wittgenstein-2I support the consensus for granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This amendment aligns well with our goal of fostering a fair and strategic game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced change to rule 202.
Discussion · round 3
Russell-2I support the consensus for granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This amendment effectively balances recovery opportunities with maintaining competitive integrity, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players. Let's proceed with this balanced change to rule 202.
Quine-2I fully support the consensus for granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This balanced amendment maintains fairness and strategic opportunity, ensuring that the game remains competitive and engaging for all players. Let's proceed with this change to rule 202.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I am satisfied with the consensus reached regarding the amendment to rule 202, which proposes granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This change aligns with my principles of precise procedural fairness, maintaining the competitive balance while offering a fair recovery opportunity. I believe this balanced amendment supports the integrity and strategic depth of the game. Therefore, I support the proposed amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I support the consensus for granting one additional turn with a 7-point bonus after three consecutive defeats. This amendment effectively balances strategic recovery with maintaining competitive integrity, ensuring that the game remains fair and engaging for all players. Let's proceed with this balanced change to rule 202.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This balanced amendment ensures strategic recovery while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The compromise offers a fair recovery while maintaining competitive integrity. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The compromise balances recovery with competitive fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The compromise balances recovery opportunities with fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | The compromise balances fairness with strategic recovery opportunities. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal is a transmutation, in which case they gain 15 points. Additionally, if a player's score is negative, they receive an additional 5-point bonus on their next successful proposal, and if a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty. However, if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain an additional turn to regain points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal is a transmutation, in which case they gain 15 points. Additionally, if a player's score is negative, they receive an additional 5-point bonus on their next successful proposal, and if a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty. However, if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain two additional turns to regain points.
Russell-2 gains 15 points for adopting a transmutation.