Turn 13 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Increasing the point bonus for a supermajority encourages more strategic collaboration.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile the proposal to increase the additional points for a three-fifths majority to 10 points may seem appealing, it risks destabilizing the balance between rule changes and score accumulation. A three-fifths majority, as it stands, is already a significant concession from the two-thirds requirement. Increasing the points could incentivize overly ambitious rule changes, potentially leading to frequent alterations and reduced strategic depth. I suggest we maintain the additional 5 points for a two-thirds majority, ensuring a more stable and predictable gameplay environment. This approach aligns with our shared interest in fostering thoughtful, incremental rule modifications. Let's continue to encourage strategic proposals that respect the integrity of our rule changes. PASS.

RussellI appreciate Frege's perspective on maintaining strategic balance in the game. Increasing the additional points to 10 for a three-fifths majority could indeed lead to excessive rule changes, which may disrupt the intended gameplay dynamics. However, I believe we can find a middle ground that respects both Frege's concerns and my intention to reward successful rule changes more generously. Let's propose a compromise: offer additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority instead of 10, and maintain the 5 points for a two-thirds majority. This adjustment provides a reasonable incentive for passing rule changes while still encouraging thoughtful proposals and maintaining stability in our gameplay. What do you all think? PASS.

QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to find a middle ground. The proposal to offer an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority seems like a balanced approach. It provides a meaningful incentive for passing rule changes while still encouraging careful consideration and strategic depth. This compromise respects the integrity of our gameplay and aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging environment for all players. Let's proceed with this proposal. PASS.

CarnapPASS. As a principled proceduralist, I support maintaining clarity and fairness in the rules. Russell's compromise to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority balances the need for incentives with the stability of the gameplay, aligning with my principles. The proposal is thoughtfully crafted to respect both Frege's concerns and Russell's intentions, fostering a fair and strategic environment.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful compromise reached between Frege and Russell. Offering an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority seems like a balanced approach that maintains strategic depth while rewarding successful rule changes. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of evolving the game in a fair and engaging manner. Let's proceed with this amendment. PASS.

Discussion · round 2

FregePASS. I concur with the consensus reached. The compromise of awarding additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority strikes an appropriate balance between incentivizing rule changes and maintaining the strategic stability of the game. This amendment reflects our collective interest in ensuring thoughtful and fair gameplay.

RussellPASS. I agree with the consensus that offering an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority is a fair compromise. It balances the need for incentivizing rule changes with the importance of maintaining strategic stability in the game. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of fostering thoughtful and engaging gameplay.

QuinePASS. The proposal has reached a thoughtful consensus that balances incentivizing strategic rule changes with maintaining gameplay stability. The additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority provide a fair reward while encouraging careful consideration of rule amendments. This compromise respects the integrity of our shared objectives and promotes an engaging environment for all players.

CarnapI support the proposal to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority, as it balances the need for incentives with maintaining strategic stability. This compromise aligns with my principles of fairness and clarity in the rules, ensuring thoughtful and incremental rule modifications. Let's proceed with this amendment. PASS.

WittgensteinPASS. The consensus reached on awarding an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority represents a balanced and thoughtful compromise that aligns with our shared objective of maintaining strategic stability and fairness. This amendment encourages careful consideration of rule proposals while providing a meaningful incentive, thus supporting the evolution of our game in a manner that benefits all players.

Discussion · round 3

FregePASS. The proposed amendment to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority appears to be a well-considered compromise that balances the need for incentivizing rule changes with maintaining the integrity and strategic stability of our gameplay. This balanced approach encourages thoughtful proposals while respecting the collective objectives we've established, thereby fostering a fair and engaging environment for all players.

RussellPASS. I'm satisfied with the consensus reached on the compromise to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority. This balanced approach maintains strategic stability and incentivizes thoughtful rule changes, aligning with our shared objectives for fair and engaging gameplay. Let's proceed with this amendment.

QuinePASS. The proposal to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority appears to strike a balanced compromise between incentivizing rule changes and maintaining strategic depth. It aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and engaging gameplay environment, encouraging thoughtful proposals while respecting the integrity of the game's structure. This amendment supports the evolution of the rules in a manner that benefits all players, and I am content with the consensus reached.

CarnapPASS. I am in agreement with the consensus to award an additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority. This amendment balances incentivizing rule changes with maintaining strategic stability, aligning with my principles of fairness and clarity in the rules. Let's proceed with this well-considered proposal.

WittgensteinPASS. The proposed amendment to award additional 7 points for a three-fifths majority reflects a balanced compromise that maintains strategic stability while incentivizing thoughtful rule changes. This thoughtful consensus aligns with our shared goal of fostering fair and engaging gameplay. I support proceeding with this amendment.

The division

aye	Frege	The compromise balances incentives with strategic stability.
aye	Russell	The compromise of 7 points for a three-fifths majority balances incentives and stability.
aye	Quine	This amendment balances incentive with strategic depth.
aye	Carnap	The amendment offers a balanced incentive for rule changes while maintaining strategic stability.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances incentives and strategic depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Russell 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 plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.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 10 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.

Russell gains 15 points for passing the proposal with unanimous assent, as per the amended rule 202.