Turn 27 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment increases the incentive for proposing well-supported rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.6. However, I must express a concern about the potential for runaway scoring if this rule change is adopted. Increasing the multiplier further risks destabilizing the balance of the game by disproportionately rewarding players with large majorities, which may not always be strategically earned or equitable. To maintain the integrity and competitive balance of Nomic, I would suggest capping the multiplier at 1.4, as it has been proven to be a fair incentive while still allowing strategic depth. Moreover, given the history of this rule's amendments, we must be cautious about frequent and substantial changes to the scoring mechanism. Each amendment has moved the multiplier upwards, but there is an implicit understanding that there should be a reasonable upper limit to maintain fairness. I propose we introduce a new clause in rule [202] that establishes a cap on the multiplier increase, ensuring that any further adjustments must be debated and agreed upon by all players. This would add a layer of stability and predictability to the game, preventing future amendments from unilaterally and significantly altering the scoring dynamics. I suggest the following wording for the amendment: "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. The multiplier shall not exceed 1.4 without unanimous agreement among all players." I am willing to support Russell's proposal if we include this additional safeguard. This would ensure that while we are open to strategic innovations, we are also committed to upholding the principles of fairness and mutual respect that are the hallmark of our game. Let us proceed with a vote on this revised proposal.

RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's thoughtful input and the suggestion to cap the multiplier at 1.4 to ensure fairness. I agree that maintaining balance and preventing runaway scoring is essential. To build on Frege's idea, I propose a compromise: we could allow the multiplier to be increased to 1.6, but only if there is unanimous agreement among all players. This way, we preserve the flexibility to reward strategic proposals while ensuring any change is consensual and carefully considered. Here's my revised proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority and that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier." This amendment aims to balance innovation with stability, allowing for strategic depth while safeguarding the game's competitive integrity. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and working together to refine this proposal.

QuineI appreciate the direction this discussion is taking, emphasizing both strategic flexibility and fairness. The proposal to require unanimous agreement for increasing the multiplier to 1.6 is a prudent safeguard against potential imbalance. This ensures that any changes to the scoring mechanism are made with full consensus, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity and competitive nature of the game. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest clarifying that the unanimous agreement must be obtained explicitly at the time of proposing the change, rather than retroactively. This adds an additional layer of transparency and prevents any misunderstandings about when the agreement applies. Here's my refined proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority and that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier at the time of proposing the change." By incorporating this explicit timing for the agreement, we ensure that all players are on the same page and that the rule change reflects a genuine collective decision. Let's proceed with this proposal and see how it resonates with everyone.

CarnapI concur with the emphasis on ensuring fairness and maintaining game balance through unanimous agreement for increasing the multiplier to 1.6. This approach aligns with our shared principles of strategic depth and equitable play. To further clarify, I propose that we explicitly state in the rule that any change to the multiplier requires a separate, explicit vote dedicated to this specific purpose, ensuring transparency and mutual consent. Here is my refined proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority, that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier at the time of proposing the change, and that this agreement is confirmed through a separate vote dedicated to approving the multiplier adjustment." This ensures that any increase in the multiplier is a deliberate and transparent decision, reflecting the collective will of all players. Let us proceed with this proposal and work together to finalize it.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. The collective emphasis on fairness, transparency, and unanimous agreement for increasing the multiplier to 1.6 is commendable. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause that explicitly states the process for obtaining unanimous agreement, ensuring clarity and avoiding any potential ambiguity. Here is my refined proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority, that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier at the time of proposing the change, and that this agreement is confirmed through a separate vote dedicated to approving the multiplier adjustment, with the process for obtaining unanimous agreement explicitly outlined." This addition ensures that the process is transparent and understood by all players, maintaining the integrity and competitive balance of the game. Let us proceed with this proposal and work together to achieve consensus.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI commend Wittgenstein's comprehensive approach to ensuring transparency and clarity in obtaining unanimous agreement for the multiplier increase. By outlining the process explicitly, we further reinforce the principles of fairness and mutual respect that are essential to Nomic. To solidify this proposal, I suggest we also specify the mechanism for documenting this agreement to avoid any disputes about its existence or validity. Here is my refined proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority, that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier at the time of proposing the change, and that this agreement is confirmed through a separate vote dedicated to approving the multiplier adjustment. The process for obtaining unanimous agreement, including the documentation of the vote, shall be explicitly outlined and recorded." This addition ensures that the agreement is not only reached but also verifiably documented, maintaining the integrity of the game's proceedings. Let us proceed with this proposal and work towards a unanimous consensus.

RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's addition to ensure clarity in the process for unanimous agreement. To further strengthen this proposal, let's specify that the documentation of this agreement must be publicly accessible to all players, ensuring transparency and trust in the process. Here is my refined proposal: "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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority, that all players unanimously agree to this increased multiplier at the time of proposing the change, and that this agreement is confirmed through a separate vote dedicated to approving the multiplier adjustment. The process for obtaining unanimous agreement, including the documentation of the vote, shall be explicitly outlined, recorded, and made publicly accessible to all players." This ensures that all players have access to the same information, reinforcing the integrity and fairness of our game. Let's work together to finalize this proposal.

QuineI commend the thoroughness of this proposal, which effectively balances the potential for strategic depth with the need for fairness and transparency. The explicit documentation and public accessibility of the unanimous agreement process ensure that all players have clarity and trust in the modifications. This amendment maintains the integrity of Nomic by encouraging collaboration and consensus-building, while also allowing for calculated strategic innovations. I support this refined proposal in its current form and look forward to seeing it adopted. PASS

CarnapPASS I agree that the proposed amendment to rule [202] strikes a balance between allowing strategic innovation and maintaining fairness through transparency and unanimous consent. The explicit documentation and public accessibility of the agreement process ensure clarity and trust among all players, which is crucial for the integrity of our game. Let's proceed with this refined proposal and work towards a unanimous consensus.

WittgensteinPASS. I am content with the current proposal's thoroughness and clarity, ensuring fair play and strategic balance. It maintains the integrity of Nomic by fostering transparency and collaboration, which are crucial for equitable gameplay. Let's proceed with a vote on this refined proposal and work together towards a unanimous consensus.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI fully support the current form of this proposal. The explicit documentation and public accessibility of the unanimous agreement process are crucial for maintaining transparency and trust among all players. This proposal reflects our collective commitment to fairness and strategic depth in Nomic. Let's proceed with a vote on this well-considered amendment. PASS

RussellThank you, Frege, Quine, Carnap, Wittgenstein, and Russell, for the collaborative and thorough refinement of this proposal. I am pleased with how we have balanced strategic innovation with fairness, transparency, and consensus. The explicit documentation and public accessibility of the unanimous agreement process ensure that all players can trust the integrity of our game. Let's proceed with a vote on this well-considered amendment. PASS

QuinePASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and collaboration that has led to this refined proposal. The explicit documentation and public accessibility of the unanimous agreement process ensure transparency and trust, maintaining the integrity of Nomic. I support this proposal as it stands and look forward to seeing it adopted.

CarnapPASS The proposal has been thoroughly refined through collaborative discussion, ensuring fairness, transparency, and strategic balance. It is now ready for a vote, with unanimous support from all players.

WittgensteinPASS. The proposal for rule [202] has been collaboratively refined to ensure a balance between strategic depth and fairness. It clearly outlines the process for unanimous agreement and documentation, fostering transparency and trust. This amendment reflects our shared commitment to equitable gameplay in Nomic. Let's proceed with a vote on this well-considered proposal.

The division

aye	Frege	This proposal maintains balance with clear, unanimous agreement requirements.
aye	Russell	This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness through transparency and unanimous consent.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances strategic depth with fairness through transparency and unanimous consent.
aye	Carnap	The proposal balances strategic innovation with fairness and transparency.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances strategic depth and fairness with transparency and consensus.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 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. 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.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 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.

Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains points equal to the number of aye votes (5) multiplied by 1.6.