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. Furthermore, if a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty, and if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain one additional turn to regain points.Strengthening the recovery mechanism supports fair competition and strategic depth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I fully support Frege-2's proposal. Limiting the re-proposal penalty to one additional turn ensures fairness and prevents rule manipulation while maintaining strategic opportunities for players to recover from setbacks. This balanced approach aligns with our shared interest in fair and competitive gameplay.
Russell-2I support Frege-2's proposal as it maintains the strategic depth of the game while preventing excessive manipulation of re-proposals. Limiting the additional turns to one ensures a fair recovery opportunity without overcomplicating the rules, aligning with our shared interest in maintaining a balanced and competitive environment.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal. Limiting the additional turns to one ensures fair recovery opportunities while preventing potential rule exploitation, maintaining the game's strategic balance. This adjustment aligns with our shared interest in fostering a competitive yet equitable environment.
Carnap-2I support Frege-2's proposal. Limiting the additional turns to one after three consecutive defeats provides a fair mechanism for recovery while maintaining the integrity and balance of the game. This aligns with our shared goal of ensuring strategic depth and equitable opportunities for all players.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse Frege-2's proposal. Limiting the additional turns to one maintains strategic fairness while preventing rule abuse, which aligns with our shared interest in an equitable and dynamic game environment. Furthermore, this proposal preserves the integrity of the ruleset by preventing excessive manipulation, ensuring that the game remains challenging yet fair for all players.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I fully support the proposal to limit additional turns to one after three consecutive defeats. This ensures fair opportunities for recovery while maintaining strategic balance and preventing rule exploitation, aligning with our collective aim of equitable gameplay. Additionally, I suggest a clarification: the one additional turn should be used immediately after the third consecutive defeat, to streamline recovery.
Russell-2Russell-2: I fully endorse Frege-2's proposal with the added clarification for using the additional turn immediately after the third consecutive defeat. This ensures clarity and fairness, supporting a balanced and equitable game environment for all players. Additionally, I suggest we emphasize the importance of this rule in maintaining strategic opportunities without enabling rule manipulation.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal with the added emphasis on using the additional turn immediately after the third consecutive defeat. This ensures clarity and fairness, supporting a balanced and equitable game environment. Additionally, I propose that we include a provision to prevent players from gaining more than one additional turn in a row, further maintaining strategic balance and preventing potential exploitation.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support Frege-2's proposal with the added provision to prevent gaining more than one additional turn consecutively, reinforcing fairness and strategic integrity. This ensures a clear, equitable recovery mechanism aligning with our shared procedural principles.
PASS
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal with the additional provision to prevent more than one consecutive additional turn. This ensures fairness and prevents potential exploitation, while maintaining strategic integrity. Additionally, let's consider implementing a clause that allows players to forfeit their additional turn if they wish, providing more strategic flexibility and control over their game trajectory.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support the proposal with the provision to allow players to forfeit their additional turn if desired, as it offers strategic flexibility without compromising fairness. This approach aligns with our shared interest in maintaining a balanced, equitable game environment, where players have control over their recovery options while preventing potential rule exploitation. Additionally, I suggest including a clause that explicitly states this option to ensure clarity and transparency for all players.
Russell-2I support Frege-2's proposal, including the option for players to forfeit their additional turn, as it enhances strategic flexibility and maintains fairness. This ensures a balanced and competitive environment, aligning with our shared interest in equitable gameplay. Additionally, I propose we specify that forfeiting the additional turn must be declared before the player's turn begins to ensure clear and consistent application of this rule.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal with the clarification that forfeiting the additional turn must be declared before the player's turn begins. This ensures transparency and prevents any ambiguity, maintaining the strategic fairness and integrity of our game. Additionally, I propose that this rule be reviewed after ten turns to assess its impact and make any necessary adjustments.
Carnap-2I support Frege-2's proposal with the clarification on forfeiting the additional turn before the start of a player's turn and the suggestion for a review after ten turns. This ensures clarity and adaptability, fostering a strategic yet fair game environment. Additionally, I propose that any changes arising from the review be subject to a supermajority vote to ensure broad consensus and maintain the integrity of our evolving ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal with the proposed review clause after ten turns, as it allows us to assess and refine our rules for optimal fairness and strategy. Furthermore, requiring a supermajority vote for changes arising from the review will ensure that any adjustments have broad support, maintaining the integrity and balance of our evolving game.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This proposal ensures fairness and strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This proposal balances strategic recovery with fair gameplay. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment balances fairness with strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposal balances recovery opportunities with strategic integrity. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal enhances strategic recovery while ensuring fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Frege-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 two additional turns 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. Furthermore, if a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty, and if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain one additional turn to regain points.
Frege-2 gains 5 points for a successful proposal due to having a negative score.