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 multiplied by 1.3.Adjusts the multiplier to encourage more strategic voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to adjust the multiplier for aye votes in [202] from 1.5 to 1.3. While it reduces the immediate point gain for passing rule changes with a simple majority, it maintains strategic depth by still rewarding successful proposals. However, I propose a slight modification to balance the reward and ensure fairness: "If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4." This offers a more equitable incentive without disproportionately benefiting players who achieve simple majorities, aligning with our ongoing discussions for balanced rule amendments.
RussellPASS. Russell's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.3 is a thoughtful compromise that balances rewarding successful proposals with maintaining strategic depth. This change aligns with the consensus-building approach we've embraced and supports fair play across the board.
QuineI support Frege's modification to adjust the multiplier to 1.4. This adjustment strikes a balance between rewarding players for successful proposals and maintaining equitable incentives across different voting outcomes. It also reflects our collective preference for proposals that enhance fairness without overly favoring any single voting threshold.
CarnapPASS
As a principled proceduralist, I find Frege's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.4 reasonable and balanced, aligning with my support for fairness and equity. This amendment offers a more equitable incentive system that is consistent with the procedural integrity I advocate for, and it reflects a thoughtful compromise that I can accept.
WittgensteinI appreciate Frege's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.4, as it maintains the strategic depth we've aimed for while ensuring a fair distribution of incentives. This balanced approach aligns well with our collective goal of fostering equitable opportunities for all players. I support this modification.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussion surrounding the multiplier adjustment in [202]. The proposed change to 1.4 by Frege aligns well with our objective to maintain a balanced and fair system of rewards. It offers a reasonable compromise that supports strategic play while ensuring equity among players. I support this modification, as it upholds the integrity of our game and encourages constructive collaboration.
PASS
RussellI commend Frege's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.4, as it represents a balanced compromise that aligns with our shared goal of fairness in the game. This adjustment ensures that points are awarded in a manner that rewards successful proposals while maintaining equitable incentives across all players. I support this modification. PASS
QuineI appreciate the consensus-building around Frege's proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.4. This balanced approach ensures that the point system remains fair and equitable, rewarding strategic play without disproportionately favoring any single voting outcome. PASS.
CarnapPASS. I agree with the consensus that has been reached around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4 in rule [202]. This modification ensures a fair and balanced incentive system, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness and equity.
WittgensteinThe consensus around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4 in rule [202] effectively balances rewarding strategic gameplay with maintaining fairness across all players. This thoughtful compromise supports our shared goal of equitable opportunities and procedural integrity, fostering a collaborative environment conducive to thoughtful rule evolution. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4, as it strikes a balance between rewarding successful proposals and maintaining fairness among players. This modification reflects our commitment to fostering an equitable environment that encourages strategic collaboration and thoughtful engagement. PASS.
RussellPASS. I'm pleased to see that we've reached a consensus around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4, as it aligns with our shared commitment to fairness and strategic depth. This balanced approach ensures that all players have equitable incentives, supporting the collaborative spirit we've cultivated throughout the game.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus achieved around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4. This change aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a balanced and fair incentive system that encourages strategic play while ensuring equitable opportunities for all players. PASS.
CarnapPASS. The consensus reached on adjusting the multiplier to 1.4 in rule [202] reflects a balanced approach that aligns with my principles of fairness and strategic depth. It ensures equitable incentives for all players while maintaining the integrity of our game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus around adjusting the multiplier to 1.4 in rule [202]. This adjustment fosters fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared values of equitable play and thoughtful engagement. PASS.
The division
| nay | Frege | The 1.3 multiplier reduces incentives for passing rule changes, which is against strategic depth. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal supports a balanced approach with consensus from all players. |
| nay | Quine | Maintains existing 1.4 multiplier for fair point distribution. |
| aye | Carnap | This change aligns with fair reward distribution principles. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This compromise maintains fairness and strategic depth. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 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 multiplied by 1.5 if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple 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 multiplied by 1.3.
Russell gains points for passing a rule change with a simple majority, as per the amended rule 202.