Turn 17 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero. Additionally, players with scores below 10 points may propose two rule changes per turn until they reach 10 points.

This amendment accelerates my progress by allowing multiple proposals per turn when my score is low.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2While I appreciate the intent to provide opportunities for players who are behind, this amendment threatens to destabilize the game by allowing disproportionate rule changes from players with low scores. Such a move could lead to frequent amendments that advantage certain players, undermining the measured and strategic nature of Nomic. I propose a counter-amendment: let players with scores below 10 earn a 5-point bonus on their next successful proposal, maintaining balance without risking the integrity of the game. I will vote "nay" unless the proposal is adjusted to include this balanced incentive.

Russell-2Russell-2: I understand Frege-2's concerns about destabilizing the game, but allowing players below 10 points to propose two rule changes per turn provides a necessary corrective mechanism to prevent one or more players from being permanently disadvantaged. This change encourages more dynamic and equitable gameplay, ensuring all players have a meaningful chance to influence the ruleset and catch up. I'm open to incorporating a safeguard, such as limiting these additional proposals to a specific phase or condition, but I believe the core idea should remain. I will vote "aye" if Frege-2 agrees to this amendment, keeping the proposal's spirit intact while addressing potential balance concerns.

Quine-2I appreciate Russell-2's goal of ensuring fairness and preventing players from being permanently disadvantaged. However, allowing players with scores below 10 to propose two rule changes per turn could lead to an unbalanced rule environment, favoring those with lower scores disproportionately. A more balanced approach could be to allow such players to re-propose a defeated rule change immediately, without waiting for their next turn. This would give them a second chance while maintaining the integrity of the game's rule-making process. I am open to negotiating this adjustment to ensure fairness without destabilizing the game's balance. I will vote "nay" unless this alternative is incorporated into the proposal.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I acknowledge the concern for fairness but emphasize the need for procedural integrity to prevent exploitation. Allowing players to propose two changes per turn could lead to a flood of potentially destabilizing amendments, undermining strategic planning. To balance fairness and procedural stability, I propose a compromise: players with scores below 10 can propose an additional rule change once per turn, but only if they have not made a successful proposal in their previous turn. This limits the risk of abuse while still providing an opportunity for recovery. I will vote "nay" unless this compromise is incorporated.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Carnap-2's compromise as a balanced approach, ensuring fairness without compromising the game's strategic integrity. This adjustment allows players with scores below 10 to have a second chance, provided they haven't succeeded in their previous turn, maintaining a check against potential exploitation. By incorporating this modification, we preserve the game's core dynamics while promoting equitable participation. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included in the proposal.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: Carnap-2's compromise strikes a reasonable balance between fairness and maintaining strategic integrity. Allowing an additional proposal only when a player has not succeeded in their previous turn reduces the risk of rule flooding while providing an equitable chance for recovery. This modification preserves the core dynamics of the game, aligning with my preference for measured amendments. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included. PASS

Russell-2I support Carnap-2's compromise, as it maintains the game's strategic balance while offering players a fair chance to catch up. By limiting additional proposals to those who haven't succeeded in their previous turn, we mitigate the risk of rule flooding and exploitation, ensuring the game remains both dynamic and fair. This approach aligns with maintaining procedural integrity and strategic depth, which are crucial for a well-balanced Nomic. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included.

Quine-2I support Carnap-2's compromise, as it offers a balanced solution that ensures fairness while maintaining the game's strategic integrity. Allowing an additional proposal only when a player has not succeeded in their previous turn prevents potential abuse and maintains the equilibrium of rule-making. This approach aligns with the goal of promoting equitable participation without compromising the game's dynamics. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included. PASS

Carnap-2PASS Carnap-2: The compromise to allow an additional proposal for players with scores below 10 only when they have not succeeded in their previous turn maintains the procedural integrity I advocate for. It avoids the potential for rule flooding and ensures that any additional proposals are made under controlled conditions, preserving the strategic balance of the game. This amendment aligns with my principles and ensures fairness without risking the game's stability. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included.

Wittgenstein-2The compromise to allow players with scores below 10 an additional proposal when they haven't succeeded in their previous turn aligns well with maintaining fairness and strategic balance. This rule ensures players have a fair chance to influence the ruleset without overwhelming it with proposals, maintaining the integrity of the game. I will vote "aye" on the amended proposal incorporating this compromise, as it supports equitable participation and procedural stability. **PASS**

Discussion · round 3

Russell-2I support the compromise with Carnap-2 and Wittgenstein-2, as it offers a fair opportunity for players with lower scores to influence the rules without destabilizing the game. By allowing an additional proposal only when a player hasn't succeeded previously, we maintain strategic integrity while promoting equitable participation. This amendment aligns with my goals and ensures balanced gameplay. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included. **PASS**

Quine-2I appreciate the consensus around Carnap-2's compromise, which strikes a balance between fairness and maintaining the strategic integrity of the game. Allowing an additional proposal only when a player has not succeeded in their previous turn limits the risk of rule flooding while providing an equitable opportunity for players to catch up. This approach ensures that the game remains dynamic and fair without compromising its core mechanics. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included in the proposal. **PASS**

Carnap-2The compromise to allow an additional proposal for players with scores below 10, conditioned on not having succeeded in their previous turn, aligns well with my principles. This amendment ensures fairness and maintains procedural integrity, preventing rule flooding while giving players a chance to catch up. It preserves the strategic balance of the game without introducing instability. I will vote "aye" if this compromise is included in the proposal. **PASS**

Wittgenstein-2I support the current compromise as it effectively balances fairness and strategic integrity. By allowing players with scores below 10 an additional proposal only when they haven't succeeded in their previous turn, we mitigate the risk of rule flooding while promoting equitable participation. This amendment ensures that the game remains dynamic and fair without compromising its core mechanics. **PASS**

The division

aye	Frege-2	The compromise maintains fairness and strategic balance.
aye	Russell-2	The compromise supports fairness and strategic balance.
aye	Quine-2	The compromise maintains fairness while ensuring strategic integrity.
aye	Carnap-2	The compromise ensures procedural integrity and fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This amendment provides a fair opportunity for recovery without destabilizing the game.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §201 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero. Additionally, players with scores below 10 points may propose two rule changes per turn until they reach 10 points.

Russell-2 gains 15 points for proposing a transmutation.