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. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.Encourages broader consensus for rule adoption by offering increased points for higher approval.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI support the proposed amendment to increase the multiplier to 1.4 for aye votes, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority. This adjustment encourages well-supported proposals and aligns with our current voting threshold, fostering strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.4 for aye votes with a two-thirds majority requirement. This change encourages strategic collaboration and ensures that only well-supported proposals lead to significant point gains. To further balance this, I suggest adding a clause where proposals receiving at least a simple majority but less than two-thirds receive a reduced multiplier of 1.2, rewarding partial consensus and maintaining player engagement.
QuineI agree with Frege's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.4 for aye votes with a two-thirds majority requirement. This change promotes well-supported rule changes and aligns well with our current voting dynamics. Russell's suggestion to implement a reduced multiplier of 1.2 for proposals with a simple majority but less than two-thirds is a good compromise, as it rewards partial consensus without diminishing the incentive for broader support. This balanced approach ensures strategic depth while keeping the game engaging for all players.
CarnapI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's contributions to the discussion. Frege's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.4 for aye votes with a two-thirds majority is a commendable step towards incentivizing well-supported proposals. Russell's addition of a reduced multiplier of 1.2 for proposals achieving a simple majority but less than two-thirds further balances the incentive structure, ensuring that partial consensus still rewards players while encouraging broader support for significant changes. This structured approach aligns well with our principles of fairness and strategic depth, and I support the proposal as it stands.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend both Frege and Russell for fostering a fair and strategic framework. The proposed multipliers of 1.4 and 1.2 effectively balance the need for broad support and engagement. To further enhance fairness, I suggest introducing a clause that allows a small bonus (e.g., 2 points) for players who cast aye votes in favor of proposals that narrowly miss the two-thirds threshold, rewarding those who contribute to near-consensus. This encourages active participation and thoughtful voting, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic and inclusive game environment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate both the structured incentives proposed by Frege and the nuanced adjustments suggested by Russell. Wittgenstein's addition of a small bonus for narrowly missing the two-thirds threshold is an excellent way to reward active participation and near-consensus efforts. However, to ensure the game's balance and prevent excessive complexity, I propose we cap the total potential points a player can earn from a single proposal at 50 points, regardless of the number of aye votes. This cap will maintain strategic depth while ensuring no single proposal can disproportionately affect the game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands, with this additional safeguard.
RussellPASS. Frege's proposal to cap the total potential points from a single proposal at 50 is a thoughtful safeguard that maintains balance while encouraging active participation. The structured multipliers for aye votes, along with Wittgenstein's bonus for near-consensus, foster a strategic and fair environment. I support the proposal as it stands, appreciating the collaborative effort in refining these incentives.
QuinePASS. The current proposal effectively balances rewarding well-supported proposals with encouraging broad participation. The structured multipliers and bonus for near-consensus, along with the cap on maximum points per proposal, maintain fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared goals. I support the proposal as it stands.
CarnapPASS. The proposal effectively balances strategic depth with fairness and participation incentives. The structured multipliers, bonus for near-consensus, and point cap maintain game balance and encourage thoughtful collaboration, aligning well with our principles. I support the proposal as it stands.
WittgensteinPASS. This proposal thoughtfully balances incentives for well-supported changes, encourages broad participation, and maintains game dynamics through its structured multipliers, bonus for near-consensus, and cap on point earnings. It aligns well with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth, and I support it as it stands.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: I appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus reached on the proposal. The structured approach to multipliers and the bonus for near-consensus effectively encourage strategic depth and active participation. The point cap ensures fairness, preventing any single proposal from disproportionately affecting the game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands.
RussellRussell: I fully support this proposal as it stands. The balance between rewarding well-supported changes and encouraging broad participation is well-structured, and the point cap ensures no single proposal can overly skew the game's dynamics. This thoughtful approach maintains strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our shared goals. PASS.
QuinePASS. The proposal effectively balances incentives for well-supported rule changes, promotes broad participation, and maintains game dynamics through structured multipliers, a bonus for near-consensus, and a point cap. This approach aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth, and I support it as it stands.
CarnapPASS. The proposal as it stands is well-considered, balancing strategic incentives with fairness and active participation. It aligns with our principles and effectively maintains game dynamics, making it a sound amendment to [202].
WittgensteinPASS. The proposal effectively balances strategic depth, fairness, and active participation, fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. This thoughtful approach aligns with our shared principles and maintains game balance, making it a sound amendment to [202].
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances incentives and fairness, encouraging well-supported rule changes. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances strategic depth and fairness while rewarding well-supported changes. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal aligns with principles of fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal enhances fairness and strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege 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 multiplied by 1.3.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
Frege's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so Frege gains points equal to the number of aye votes (5) multiplied by 1.4.