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 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.To incentivize more robust proposals and align with the higher adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's recent proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.6 for aye votes in rule [202], but I believe increasing it to 1.8 for a two-thirds majority change would better incentivize players to propose well-supported changes. This adjustment rewards the proposer more generously when their change garners broad support, aligning incentives with the goal of achieving a balanced and thoughtful ruleset. I support this proposal and would encourage others to consider how it promotes strategic collaboration.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.8 for a two-thirds majority in [202]. This adjustment indeed offers a greater incentive for proposing well-supported changes, promoting collaboration and strategic depth. To ensure broad acceptance, I suggest we also include a clause that requires a minimum number of votes for a proposal to be eligible for the multiplier, encouraging more participation. I support this proposal with the added clause and invite others to consider this balanced approach.
QuinePASS. Frege's proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.8 for a two-thirds majority in [202] aligns well with promoting strategic depth and encouraging well-supported changes. Russell's suggestion to include a minimum vote requirement further ensures that only broadly supported proposals benefit from this increased reward, maintaining fairness and participation.
CarnapCarnap: The proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.8 for a two-thirds majority in [202] aligns with the principles of promoting thoughtful and broadly supported rule changes. However, I insist on adding a procedural safeguard: any proposal must be documented and made publicly accessible before voting, ensuring transparency and accountability. I support the proposal with this addition to maintain procedural integrity.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I endorse the proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.8 for a two-thirds majority, as it aligns with our goal of encouraging well-supported rule changes. To further enhance fairness, let's add a rule requiring that any change must be accompanied by a rationale, ensuring transparency and facilitating informed voting. I support this proposal with the added requirement for rationales.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful additions made by Carnap and Wittgenstein to the proposal. Ensuring transparency and accountability through public documentation and providing rationales will indeed bolster the integrity of our rule-changing process. However, I propose we also incorporate a review step to further ensure fairness and thorough consideration: before any rule change becomes final, it should be subject to a review by an independent committee of players. I support the proposal with these additional safeguards: public documentation, rationales, and a review step.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit demonstrated by everyone in refining Frege's proposal. The addition of a review step is a commendable enhancement, ensuring that all rule changes are thoroughly vetted. However, to avoid potential delays and ensure timely progress, I suggest that the review process be streamlined, perhaps by limiting it to a fixed number of review cycles or by setting a reasonable time limit for the committee to complete its review. This adjustment would maintain the integrity of the process while keeping the game dynamic and engaging. I support the proposal with the streamlined review process.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative refinements made to Frege's proposal, particularly the focus on transparency and accountability through public documentation and rationales. However, to further balance the need for thoroughness with the game's pace, I suggest adding a provision for expedited reviews in cases where there is unanimous preliminary support from all players, allowing for quicker adoption of widely agreed-upon changes. I support the proposal with this expedited review clause, ensuring both fairness and efficiency in our rule-changing process.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance the rule-changing process with transparency, accountability, and efficiency. However, I propose that we also include a clause ensuring that the review committee is composed of a rotating selection of players to prevent any potential bias and maintain fairness across all proposals. I support the proposal with this addition for impartiality in the review process.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the addition of an impartial review committee and the expedited review clause, as they both enhance the fairness and efficiency of our process. To further encourage thoughtful participation, I suggest adding a rule that allocates a small point bonus for players who contribute meaningful rationales, rewarding engagement in the rule-making process. I support the proposal with this incentive for active participation.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend the proposal's evolution towards a comprehensive and fair system that incentivizes thoughtful engagement while maintaining transparency. To ensure this system remains practical, I propose an additional safeguard: limit the size of the review committee to three players, rotating with each session, to prevent delays while still ensuring diverse perspectives. I support the proposal with this added efficiency measure.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements to Frege's proposal, particularly the incentive for meaningful contributions and the efficient review process. To further enhance fairness and ensure diverse perspectives, let's establish a transparent selection process for the review committee, perhaps through a rotating, randomized draw. I support the proposal with this procedural clarity.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, which have resulted in a robust and fair proposal. The combination of increased incentives for well-supported changes, transparency through public documentation and rationales, a streamlined review process, and incentives for meaningful participation ensures a balanced and engaging gameplay experience. This proposal aligns well with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and strategic environment.
CarnapPASS. The proposal has reached a comprehensive form that balances incentives, transparency, and procedural fairness. Its structured approach to rule changes, including the increased multiplier, public documentation, rationales, a streamlined review process, and incentives for meaningful participation, aligns well with our shared goals of promoting strategic collaboration and maintaining an engaging, fair game environment. I support the proposal as it stands.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful refinements made to Frege's proposal, particularly the structured review process and the incentives for meaningful participation. As a reformer, I believe these changes align well with our goal of maintaining a fair and strategic environment. To further enhance the proposal, let's ensure that the rationale provided by proposers is concise and directly tied to the proposed change, which will facilitate more informed voting and streamline the review process. I support the proposal with this additional clarity requirement for rationales.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal incentivizes well-supported changes, ensuring strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances strategic depth with transparency and fairness. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal balances incentives with fairness and transparency. |
| aye | Carnap | supports transparent and fair rule-changing process |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment fosters strategic collaboration and thoughtful rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 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. 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.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 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
Frege's proposal was adopted with 5 aye votes, so under rule 202, Frege gains points equal to 5 aye votes multiplied by 1.8.