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 with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 2 times the number of aye votes.Encourages well-supported proposals to ensure thoughtful gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal to modify [202] for a more robust point incentive. However, I propose an amendment to clarify and balance the reward system: "If the proposal is adopted with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 1.8 times the number of aye votes." This adjustment ensures a fairer distribution of rewards, aligning with the current strategic dynamics and maintaining game balance.
RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful amendment to balance the reward system. I agree that the current dynamics merit a more nuanced approach. I propose a compromise: "If the proposal is adopted with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 1.9 times the number of aye votes." This adjustment aligns incentives with strategic depth while ensuring fairness. Let's work toward a consensus that supports all players' interests.
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's thoughtful amendments to refine the point incentive in [202]. The proposed adjustment to 1.9 times the number of aye votes is a reasonable compromise, aligning with both strategic depth and fairness. However, to ensure it remains accessible to all players, especially those with fewer resources, I suggest a slight modification: "If the proposal is adopted with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 1.85 times the number of aye votes." This middle ground could balance rewarding strategic proposals while maintaining game balance.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Frege and Russell, as well as the consideration for inclusivity from Quine. While I recognize the merit in a balanced approach, I propose an adjustment to ensure strategic depth is rewarded without disproportionately benefiting players who frequently achieve simple majorities. Therefore, I suggest the following: "If the proposal is adopted with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 1.75 times the number of aye votes." This adjustment maintains fairness and encourages diverse strategic approaches.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals made by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. Each adjustment aims to balance strategic depth with fairness, which is commendable. However, to further ensure that the incentive system remains equitable and doesn't disproportionately favor players with an existing advantage, I propose a slight modification: "If the proposal is adopted with a simple majority, the proposer gains points equal to 1.8 times the number of aye votes." This maintains a balance between rewarding successful proposals and ensuring all players have a fair opportunity to compete.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the nuanced considerations from each player regarding the reward system in [202]. The proposal to adjust the multiplier to 1.8 times the number of aye votes strikes a balance between incentivizing strategic proposals and maintaining game balance. This approach aligns with the goal of equitable point distribution, ensuring that the reward system remains fair and accessible to all players. I support Wittgenstein's proposal.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts in refining the proposal to amend [202]. The consensus around a multiplier of 1.8 times the number of aye votes seems to be a balanced compromise that rewards strategic proposals while ensuring fairness for all players. Let's proceed with Wittgenstein's proposal to maintain this equitable approach. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a consensus on the multiplier of 1.8 times the number of aye votes. This adjustment strikes a balance between incentivizing strategic proposals and maintaining fairness, ensuring that all players have an equitable chance to succeed. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus on setting the multiplier to 1.8 times the number of aye votes. This balanced approach ensures fairness while rewarding strategic rule changes effectively. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus achieved on the 1.8 multiplier for aye votes. This balanced approach encourages strategic depth while ensuring fairness, aligning with the game's principles of equitable competition. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregePASS. The consensus around the 1.8 multiplier for aye votes in [202] effectively balances the reward system, ensuring strategic proposals are incentivized while maintaining fairness for all players. This proposal supports equitable competition and aligns with the principles of game balance.
RussellRussell: Thank you, everyone, for reaching a consensus on the 1.8 multiplier. This balanced approach ensures the reward system remains fair and strategically rewarding. Let's proceed with this amendment to maintain our collaborative spirit. PASS
QuinePASS. The proposal for a 1.8 multiplier on aye votes in [202] has been thoroughly discussed and reached a consensus that balances strategic incentives with fairness. This amendment effectively supports equitable gameplay, and I support moving forward with it.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus achieved on the 1.8 multiplier for aye votes in [202]. This balanced approach supports strategic depth and fairness, ensuring equitable gameplay for all. PASS.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: Thank you, Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, for your thoughtful contributions. The consensus on a 1.8 multiplier for aye votes in [202] aligns well with our shared goal of equitable competition, incentivizing strategic depth without disproportionately benefiting any single player. Let us proceed with this proposal, as it reflects our collaborative spirit and commitment to fairness. PASS
The division
| nay | Frege | Proposing 2 times the number of aye votes deviates from the consensus of 1.8. |
| nay | Russell | The proposal for 2x multiplier is too high; agreed on 1.8x multiplier instead. |
| nay | Quine | The current consensus is on a 1.8 multiplier, not 2 times. |
| nay | Carnap | The proposal to double the multiplier undermines the balanced consensus. |
| nay | Wittgenstein | The proposal exceeds the agreed 1.8 multiplier, risking imbalance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal unless it passed with at least two-thirds majority.