Turn 6 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment provides a safety net for players penalized repeatedly, maintaining competitive balance.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I support this proposal as it provides a safety net for players who face consecutive defeats, preventing prolonged penalties and maintaining competitive balance. However, I suggest the additional turn be limited to a maximum of 10 points to prevent excessive game length.

Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's input on limiting the additional turn to a maximum of 10 points. I agree to this modification, as it maintains the balance between offering a recovery mechanism and ensuring the game does not become overly extended. Let's move forward with this change, and I'm open to further adjustments that might bolster support.

Quine-2I support Russell-2's amendment with Frege-2's suggested modification to limit the additional turn's gain to a maximum of 10 points. This keeps the game fair and prevents any player from gaining an overwhelming advantage through repeated retries, while still offering a recovery opportunity for those in a slump.

Carnap-2As a principled proceduralist, I support the proposal with Frege-2's suggested modification. Limiting the additional turn's gain to a maximum of 10 points ensures fairness and prevents excessive game length, aligning with precise procedural rules. I also suggest adding a clause that the additional turn can only be taken once per game cycle to maintain competitive balance. This structured approach supports equitable play while adhering to our rules.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend the proposal's intent to balance fairness and strategic depth. I support it with the addition that the additional turn should only be available if the player's score is below a certain threshold, say 20 points, ensuring it helps those truly in need without disrupting competitive dynamics. This safeguard prevents the rule from being exploited while maintaining its intended protective purpose.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2I support the amendment with Frege-2's suggested modification to cap the additional turn's gain at 10 points. Additionally, I agree with Carnap-2's idea to limit the additional turn to once per game cycle, ensuring it provides a fair safety net without extending the game unnecessarily. I also endorse Wittgenstein-2's condition that the player's score must be below 20 points to qualify, preventing exploitation of this rule. Let's proceed with these refinements to maintain both competitive balance and procedural fairness.

Russell-2I fully endorse the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure a fair safety net while maintaining the game's competitive integrity and preventing exploitation. Let's move forward with these adjustments to gain unanimous support.

Quine-2I fully support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure a fair safety net while maintaining the game's competitive integrity and preventing exploitation. Let's move forward with these adjustments to gain unanimous support.

Carnap-2I support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure fairness and procedural clarity, maintaining competitive balance without allowing rule exploitation.

Wittgenstein-2I support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure a fair safety net while maintaining the game's competitive integrity and preventing exploitation. By incorporating these adjustments, we can encourage strategic experimentation without risking imbalance. Let's move forward to adopt this rule change and advance the evolution of our game.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2I support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure the rule provides a fair safety net while maintaining competitive balance and procedural integrity, fostering strategic experimentation without risking exploitation. Let's move forward to adopt this rule change and advance the evolution of our game.

Russell-2Russell-2: I am pleased that we have reached a consensus with all the suggested modifications. The cap at 10 points ensures the game doesn't drag on, the limit to once per game cycle prevents abuse, and the score threshold keeps it fair. Let's vote now to adopt this balanced and strategic amendment.

Quine-2I fully support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure fairness, maintain competitive integrity, and prevent exploitation, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced and strategic game. Let's move forward to adopt this rule change.

Carnap-2I fully support the proposal with all the suggested modifications: capping the additional turn's gain at 10 points, allowing it only once per game cycle, and making it available only if the player's score is below 20 points. These refinements ensure fairness and procedural integrity, maintaining competitive balance without allowing rule exploitation. Let's move forward to adopt this rule change and advance the evolution of our game.

Wittgenstein-2I fully support the proposal with all the suggested modifications. This approach not only provides a fair safety net for players in need but also ensures the game remains dynamic and competitive. The caps and conditions proposed strike a balance between allowing strategic experimentation and preventing the game from being drawn out or exploited. Let's move forward to adopt this rule change, enhancing both the fairness and strategic depth of our game.

The division

aye	Frege-2	The proposal provides a fair safety net with balanced conditions.
aye	Russell-2	The proposed amendment ensures fairness and strategic recovery for players facing consecutive defeats.
aye	Quine-2	This proposal supports fairness and competitive balance while preventing exploitation.
aye	Carnap-2	The proposal maintains procedural clarity and strategic balance.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This amendment strategically balances recovery and competition.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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 proposal fails, the proposer may re-propose it in their next turn without penalty.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, but if a player loses points for three consecutive defeats, they gain an additional turn to regain points.

Russell-2 gains 15 points for adopting a transmutation.