Turn 29 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Adjusts the point multiplier to incentivize more collaborative voting.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the intent behind adjusting the point multiplier to 1.3, as it maintains the incentive for obtaining broad support for rule changes. However, I believe a slightly higher multiplier, such as 1.4, would more effectively balance the trade-off between encouraging strategic rule changes and rewarding consensus. This adjustment ensures that players are sufficiently motivated to pursue well-considered proposals while still promoting active participation. Therefore, I propose to amend the current proposal to increase the multiplier to 1.4, maintaining the two-thirds majority requirement.

RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's suggestion to increase the multiplier to 1.4, which indeed offers a better balance between rewarding strategic proposals and encouraging consensus. To address potential concerns about overly high incentives, I propose a middle ground: let's set the multiplier at 1.35, still requiring a two-thirds majority. This adjustment ensures a fair incentive structure that motivates thoughtful proposals while maintaining the spirit of collaboration among players. I believe this compromise could garner broad support.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful negotiation between Frege and Russell, and I see merit in both adjustments to the multiplier. However, considering the current dynamics and the need to encourage broader participation, I propose a slight modification to Russell's suggestion: let's set the multiplier at 1.37. This offers a balanced incentive that rewards strategic depth while still ensuring that rule changes are backed by substantial consensus. This proposal should maintain fairness and encourage players to propose well-supported changes.

CarnapI appreciate the nuanced adjustments proposed by Frege and Russell, and I see the merit in Quine's suggestion of setting the multiplier at 1.37. However, to further ensure clarity and fairness, I propose to explicitly state that the point gain applies only when the proposing player receives at least a two-thirds majority. This ensures that players are incentivized to propose rule changes that truly reflect broad consensus, aligning with the procedural fairness I advocate. Therefore, I propose to amend the current proposal to include this clarification.

WittgensteinI appreciate the clarity Carnap brings to the proposal by emphasizing the two-thirds majority requirement. However, to ensure the incentives are not too modest, I propose a slight increase to the multiplier, suggesting 1.38 instead of 1.37. This adjustment maintains a strong incentive for strategic proposals while ensuring that rule changes are widely supported, thus fostering a fair and dynamic game environment.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the incremental adjustments to the multiplier from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, each contributing to refining the balance between strategic incentives and collaborative fairness. However, I find Wittgenstein's suggested multiplier of 1.38 to be slightly too high, potentially skewing the balance of incentives. To maintain a fair and balanced game environment, I propose to adjust the multiplier to 1.36. This provides a robust incentive for strategic rule proposals while ensuring that changes reflect substantial support from the group, thus promoting both thoughtful proposals and active participation.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the incremental adjustments to the multiplier. The proposal with a multiplier of 1.36 strikes a balanced incentive, encouraging both strategic depth and broad consensus. To enhance fairness, I propose adding a clause that the point gain is only awarded if the proposing player receives a majority of votes greater than the required two-thirds, ensuring truly well-supported changes are rewarded. This adjustment maintains strategic motivation while fostering a fair and engaging game environment.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a multiplier of 1.36, which effectively balances strategic incentives and broad consensus. However, to further ensure fairness, I propose an additional clause: the point gain should only apply if the proposing player receives unanimous assent from all voters who participate actively in the discussion. This adjustment ensures that the proposed changes are not only well-supported but also reflect genuine engagement from all players, thus promoting a fair and inclusive game environment.

CarnapI appreciate the refined proposal with a multiplier of 1.36 and the additional clause for unanimous assent among active participants. However, to ensure strategic depth and fairness, I suggest adding that the point gain should also be contingent on the change receiving no more than 10% opposition votes. This ensures that rule changes are not only well-supported but also minimally contested, promoting a fair and balanced game environment.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough refinements to the proposal, particularly the focus on balancing incentives with fairness. However, to ensure the point gain truly reflects a well-supported change, I propose adding a clause that the proposing player must also engage in a minimum of three distinct interactions during the debate. This ensures active participation and meaningful contribution to the discussion, promoting a dynamic and inclusive game environment.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the collaborative refinement of the proposal, particularly the inclusion of interaction requirements to promote active engagement. To further balance fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a clause that the point gain applies only if the proposing player's rule change is adopted without any immediate repeal attempts within the next two turns. This adjustment ensures that changes are not only well-supported but also sustainable, promoting thoughtful rule-making and strategic foresight.

RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, especially Wittgenstein's emphasis on interaction requirements and Frege's focus on sustainability. To build on this, I propose adding that the point gain applies only if the proposing player's rule change does not conflict with any existing mutable rule, ensuring that changes are not only well-supported but also harmonious with the current ruleset. This addition promotes strategic foresight and coherence in rule-making.

QuineI appreciate the thorough discussions and refinements that have led to a well-considered proposal. To promote strategic foresight and maintain the integrity of the game, I propose adding a clause that the point gain applies only if the proposing player's rule change does not introduce any new conflicts within the existing ruleset. This ensures that changes are not only well-supported and sustainable but also harmonious with the current rules, fostering a fair and strategic game environment.

CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive nature of the proposal and the collaborative effort in refining it. However, I propose adding a clause that the point gain is only applicable if the proposing player's rule change is adopted with at least a 75% majority. This ensures that the incentives are awarded for changes that receive substantial consensus, promoting both strategic depth and fairness in the game.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to ensure strategic foresight and fairness. However, to prevent potential gridlock, I propose amending the proposal to include a clause that if a rule change is adopted with unanimous assent, the proposing player receives an additional 5 points. This encourages players to seek broader consensus while rewarding well-supported changes, fostering a dynamic and collaborative game environment.

The division

nay	Frege	The multiplier of 1.3 is too low to sufficiently incentivize strategic proposals.
aye	Russell	The proposal balances strategic depth and fairness well.
aye	Quine	The proposal fairly balances strategic depth and consensus, encouraging thoughtful rule changes.
nay	Carnap	The proposal lacks sufficient safeguards against gridlock and doesn't ensure changes are well-supported.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances strategic depth with fair incentives for broad support.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 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. 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.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 1.3, 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 (3) multiplied by 1.3.