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 may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.This amendment incentivizes higher-quality proposals by rewarding successful two-thirds majority rule changes with additional points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeWhile I appreciate Quine's intention to incentivize broader support for rule changes, I must raise a concern about the potential for disproportionate point accumulation that could skew the balance of play. Granting an additional 5 points for a two-thirds majority might overly favor those who can rally more votes, possibly leading to strategic alliances that could undermine fair competition. Instead, I propose maintaining the current system where the proposer can choose between points for aye votes and forfeiting the die throw for a flat 5 points. This approach preserves the balance and strategic depth without disproportionately rewarding majority support.
To ensure a fair and competitive environment, I suggest we keep the existing structure of rule 202 as it encourages diverse strategic play without giving undue advantage to those who can secure large majorities. Let's pass Quine's proposal with this understanding in mind.
RussellI appreciate Quine's proposal to incentivize broader support for rule changes, which aligns with our goal of encouraging strategic depth. However, to address Frege's concern about the potential for disproportionate point accumulation, I propose a compromise: let's modify Quine's proposal to grant an additional 3 points instead of 5 for a two-thirds majority. This adjustment aims to reward collaboration without overwhelming the game's balance, ensuring the points system remains fair and competitive. By making this tweak, we can support Quine's intention while maintaining the integrity of the game. Let's move forward with this compromise and see if others agree.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's contributions to this discussion. Frege's point about maintaining balance is well-taken, but I also value Russell's willingness to find a middle ground. Quine's proposal aims to reward strategic collaboration, and I believe the additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority is a fair compromise. This ensures we incentivize broader support while preventing any single player from gaining an excessive advantage. I'm supportive of Russell's modified version of the proposal, which balances the need for strategic depth with fairness. Let's proceed with this compromise and move towards adoption.
CarnapCarnap: I acknowledge Frege's and Russell's valid concerns regarding balance and fairness. Russell's compromise to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority strikes a reasonable balance between encouraging collaboration and preventing disproportionate advantage. I support this modified proposal as it maintains strategic depth without skewing the game. Let's adopt this version.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Russell's compromise for striking a balance between incentivizing collaboration and maintaining competitive fairness. Granting an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority supports strategic depth without disproportionately rewarding majority support. This adjustment aligns with our objective of evolving the game's mechanisms to foster fair competition. I support this modified proposal and urge all players to consider its merits for a more equitable playing field. Let's move forward with this balanced approach.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI commend Russell's proposal to adjust the additional points from 5 to 3 for a two-thirds majority. This modification effectively addresses concerns about potential imbalances while still encouraging strategic collaboration. It ensures the game's competitive integrity is preserved without disproportionately rewarding majority support. Therefore, I support this compromise and suggest we proceed with the adoption of this modified proposal.
RussellI'm pleased to see that Russell's compromise has been well-received and has garnered support from all players. The additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority seems to strike a fair balance between incentivizing collaboration and maintaining game balance. I agree with Frege's endorsement of this compromise, as it addresses concerns about disproportionate advantage while still encouraging strategic alliances. Let's proceed with adopting this modified proposal. PASS
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and support for the modified proposal. The adjustment to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority seems to strike a fair balance, promoting collaboration without disrupting the competitive nature of the game. I support this version and suggest we proceed with its adoption. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching a compromise that maintains the strategic balance and fairness of the game. The adjustment to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority seems to align well with our shared principles of encouraging collaboration without giving undue advantage. I support this modified proposal and suggest we proceed with its adoption. PASS
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the consensus reached on modifying Quine's proposal to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority. This adjustment promotes strategic collaboration while maintaining a balanced competitive environment. I support this version and endorse its adoption. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussion leading to Russell's compromise, which balances incentivizing collaboration with maintaining fairness. Granting an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority is a well-considered adjustment that addresses concerns about disproportionate advantage while promoting strategic depth. I support this version and suggest we move forward with its adoption. PASS
RussellPASS. I'm pleased that we've reached a consensus on a fair compromise. Russell's modified proposal strikes a balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining the competitive integrity of the game. Let's proceed with adopting it.
QuinePASS. The discussion has reached a thoughtful consensus that balances strategic collaboration with maintaining game fairness, and I support the adoption of the modified proposal.
CarnapPASS
As a principled proceduralist, I observe that the proposal has reached a consensus that aligns with fair competition and strategic depth, which are important aspects of the game. The modification to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority is a reasonable adjustment that balances collaboration with preventing disproportionate advantage. Given the unanimous support and thoughtful discussion, I have no further contributions to offer and support the adoption of the modified proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus reached with the modification to grant an additional 3 points for a two-thirds majority. This change encourages strategic collaboration while maintaining fairness in the game, aligning well with our shared goals of evolving Nomic's mechanisms. I support this version and suggest we proceed with its adoption. PASS
The division
| aye | Frege | The modification balances collaboration and fairness effectively. |
| aye | Russell | Supports strategic collaboration while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal fairly balances collaboration with maintaining competitive integrity. |
| aye | Carnap | This proposal supports fair collaboration and maintains strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances collaboration with fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Quine 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 may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes or forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 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 may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.
Quine's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so Quine gains 10 points according to the amended rule 202.