Turn 4 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment encourages innovation by removing the penalty for a failed proposal, allowing players to refine their strategies.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I support this amendment as it promotes strategic experimentation without the risk of point loss from failed proposals. By allowing re-proposals, it maintains fairness while encouraging players to refine their ideas, ultimately benefiting the game's dynamism and depth.

Russell-2I support this amendment because it reduces the risk of point loss from repeated proposals, encouraging players to refine and improve their rule changes. By allowing re-proposals, it promotes strategic experimentation while maintaining fairness, ultimately benefiting the game's dynamism and depth. Let's build a coalition to pass this change and ensure continued innovation in our rule-making.

Quine-2I support Russell-2's amendment as it fosters a more dynamic and resilient game environment. By allowing re-proposals without penalty, it encourages players to persist with potentially valuable rule changes, enhancing the strategic landscape and ensuring that the game remains engaging and fair for everyone.

Carnap-2I appreciate Russell-2's and Quine-2's points about fostering a dynamic environment, but I must insist on precision and clarity in our procedures. Allowing re-proposals without penalty could lead to a lack of consequence for ill-considered proposals, potentially disrupting the game's balance. To address this, I propose a counter-amendment: "If a proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn, but only if they explain how the proposal has been refined or improved in response to the previous vote." This maintains fairness while ensuring that only well-considered proposals are revisited.

Wittgenstein-2I support Russell-2's amendment with a caveat to balance innovation and accountability. Let's allow re-proposals but introduce a minor point deduction for each failed re-proposal, ensuring players refine their ideas thoughtfully. This maintains the dynamism while preventing abuse of the system.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2I support Carnap-2's counter-amendment because it introduces a necessary safeguard against repetitive, unrefined proposals while still allowing strategic adjustments. By requiring proposers to explain refinements, we ensure that only well-considered ideas persist, thus maintaining the integrity and balance of our game. Additionally, I suggest we incorporate Wittgenstein-2's point deduction for repeated failures to further incentivize thoughtful proposal development.

Russell-2I support Carnap-2's counter-amendment with Wittgenstein-2's point deduction clause because it strikes a balance between allowing strategic re-proposals and maintaining accountability. By ensuring that proposers explain refinements and face a minor penalty for repeated failures, we encourage thoughtful development of rule changes, preserving the game's integrity and dynamism. Let's work together to form a coalition that supports this balanced approach.

Quine-2I support the combined amendment with the refinement requirement and point deduction. This approach balances innovation and accountability, ensuring players refine proposals thoughtfully while maintaining strategic depth. Let's form a coalition to pass this balanced change.

Carnap-2I support the combined amendment, as it ensures that any re-proposals are both thoughtful and accountable. By requiring proposers to explain how their proposal has been refined and introducing a point deduction for repeated failures, we maintain a balance between encouraging strategic experimentation and preserving the game's fairness and integrity. Let's solidify this coalition to ensure this balanced approach is adopted.

Wittgenstein-2I support the combined amendment as it balances the need for strategic experimentation with the necessity of maintaining accountability. By requiring proposers to explain their refinements and introducing a point deduction for repeated failures, we ensure that the game remains dynamic yet fair. Let's solidify this coalition to pass the change and enhance our rule-making environment.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2I support the combined amendment, as it introduces a structured process for re-proposing changes while ensuring accountability and strategic depth. By requiring proposers to explain refinements and imposing a point deduction for repeated failures, we maintain fairness and encourage thoughtful rule development. This balanced approach promotes both innovation and integrity in our game, and I am committed to solidifying this coalition to adopt the amendment. Let's work together to ensure our game remains dynamic and engaging.

Russell-2I support the combined amendment, as it successfully merges strategic innovation with accountability. By mandating a clear explanation for refinements and implementing a point deduction for repeated failures, we ensure a fair and balanced approach to rule modification. This proposal promotes thoughtful engagement and maintains the integrity of our game. Let's finalize this coalition and adopt the change together.

Quine-2I support the combined amendment as it carefully balances the need for strategic flexibility with accountability. By requiring proposers to explain refinements and imposing a point deduction for repeated failures, we ensure thoughtful development while maintaining the game's integrity. This approach promotes innovation without sacrificing fairness, and I am committed to supporting this balanced change. Let's solidify this coalition and move forward together.

Carnap-2I acknowledge the concerns raised by Wittgenstein-2 about potential system abuse. The proposed point deduction should be carefully calibrated to discourage frivolous re-proposals while still encouraging thoughtful refinement. Let's agree on a deduction that strikes the right balance, perhaps a small penalty like 2 points to ensure accountability without discouraging strategic experimentation.

Wittgenstein-2I appreciate Carnap-2's consideration regarding the point deduction. A 2-point penalty seems reasonable to balance accountability with the encouragement of strategic refinement. Let's finalize this amendment to ensure our game remains both dynamic and fair, fostering a collaborative and engaging rule-making environment.

The division

aye	Frege-2	The amendment encourages thoughtful re-proposals with accountability.
aye	Russell-2	This amendment promotes strategic experimentation and encourages thoughtful proposal refinement.
aye	Quine-2	This amendment balances innovation with accountability, ensuring thoughtful rule development.
aye	Carnap-2	This amendment, with the required refinements, balances strategic experimentation and accountability.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This amendment encourages strategic refinement and maintains fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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.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 proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty.

Russell-2 gains 15 points for proposing a transmutation, and the proposal is recorded as a new rule.