Turn 37 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

To incentivize broader consensus for rule changes, enhancing strategic collaboration.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's initiative to refine the voting multipliers, but I'm concerned that adding an additional tier, such as a 2.5 multiplier for unanimous votes, could skew the incentive structure too heavily towards achieving unanimous support, which may not always be feasible. This could lead to a less dynamic and more stagnant gameplay, where players might become overly conservative to avoid conflicts that would prevent unanimous agreement. Instead, I propose we maintain the current structure of multipliers but perhaps add a small bonus for proposals that achieve a specific percentage of support above simple majority, say a 2.3 multiplier for 85% or more votes. This could encourage more collaboration without the necessity of unanimous consent, thus maintaining a balance between strategic depth and adaptability. Let's discuss how we might refine this idea to ensure it aligns with our goals for the game's dynamics.

RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful concerns. I agree that maintaining a dynamic and flexible gameplay is crucial. Your suggestion of a 2.3 multiplier for 85% or more votes is a compelling middle ground that encourages collaboration without the pressure of unanimity. To further refine this idea, perhaps we could incorporate a condition where achieving this tier requires the proposal to have been debated for a minimum period, ensuring thorough discussion and consideration. This adjustment could balance the incentive structure while promoting more thoughtful and deliberate rule changes. Let's consider how this might integrate with our existing system and ensure it aligns with our strategic goals.

QuinePASS. The proposal to introduce a 2.3 multiplier for 85% support, contingent on a minimum debate period, seems like a balanced approach that encourages thorough discussion while maintaining strategic flexibility. It aligns well with our goal of fostering collaboration without overly skewing the incentives towards unanimity, which could stagnate the game's dynamics.

CarnapCarnap: I support the proposal with the 2.3 multiplier for 85% support contingent on a minimum debate period. This approach preserves the procedural integrity by encouraging meaningful debate and collaboration without overly concentrating power in unanimous votes. It aligns with the principle of maintaining a balanced and dynamic rule-changing process.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. The suggestion of a 2.3 multiplier for 85% support, contingent on a minimum debate period, aligns well with our goal of encouraging thoughtful and collaborative rule changes. To further enhance this, we might consider adding a clause that rewards players for proposing rule changes that pass with this level of support, perhaps by granting an additional point for fostering a consensus. This could further incentivize players to engage in meaningful dialogue, ensuring that the game remains both dynamic and fair.

Discussion · round 2

FregeFrege: I am pleased with the collective direction towards a balanced approach. The additional clause for rewarding players with an extra point for achieving 85% support aligns well with our aim of fostering a collaborative environment. This ensures that strategic depth is preserved while encouraging players to engage in meaningful dialogue. I propose we formalize this by specifying the exact criteria for the minimum debate period to ensure clarity and fairness in implementation.

RussellThank you, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, for the constructive dialogue. I support the proposal with the 2.3 multiplier for 85% support contingent on a minimum debate period, and I agree with Wittgenstein's idea of granting an additional point for achieving this level of support. To ensure clarity, let's define the minimum debate period as at least three turns of discussion prior to the vote. This will promote thorough consideration and maintain the dynamic nature of the game.

QuinePASS. The proposal for a 2.3 multiplier at 85% support with a minimum debate period of three turns, plus an additional point for reaching this threshold, effectively balances strategic incentives with collaborative gameplay. It encourages thoughtful discussion without overly prioritizing unanimity, maintaining the game's dynamic and fair nature.

CarnapCarnap: I concur with the proposal as refined by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. The 2.3 multiplier for 85% support with a minimum debate period of three turns, plus an additional point for achieving this threshold, aligns with our principles of fostering strategic depth and collaborative rule changes. This amendment ensures a fair balance between rewarding collaboration and maintaining dynamic gameplay. Let's formalize this to uphold procedural integrity and fairness in the game's progression.

WittgensteinI commend the collaborative refinement of this proposal and the consensus-building efforts that have taken place. The introduction of a 2.3 multiplier for achieving 85% support, combined with a minimum debate period of three turns, aligns well with our goal of fostering thoughtful and balanced rule changes. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest we incorporate a clause that allows for periodic review and adjustment of these multipliers and thresholds, ensuring the game's dynamics remain adaptable and fair over time. This clause could specify that reviews occur every ten turns, allowing players to reassess and recalibrate the incentives as needed. This approach will help maintain strategic depth while allowing for evolutionary changes that reflect the evolving nature of our gameplay.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative refinements we've made to this proposal. The introduction of a periodic review clause every ten turns is a prudent measure to ensure the game's dynamics remain adaptable and fair, aligning with our principle of maintaining durable institutions. Let us formalize this proposal to uphold our strategic goals and procedural integrity: **Formal Proposal:** Amend rule [202] to state: "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 a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 85% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. A proposal that achieves 85% or more support is awarded an additional point for fostering consensus. This multiplier structure is subject to review every ten turns to ensure adaptability and fairness." This proposal balances strategic depth with the encouragement of collaboration, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair.

RussellI appreciate the thorough and collaborative efforts that have refined this proposal. The introduction of a periodic review clause every ten turns is an excellent measure to ensure the game's dynamics remain adaptable and fair, aligning with our principle of maintaining durable institutions. Let us formalize this proposal to uphold our strategic goals and procedural integrity: **Formal Proposal:** Amend rule [202] to state: "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 a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 85% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. A proposal that achieves 85% or more support is awarded an additional point for fostering consensus. This multiplier structure is subject to review every ten turns to ensure adaptability and fairness." This proposal balances strategic depth with the encouragement of collaboration, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair. I support this amendment as it stands.

QuinePASS. The proposal as formalized effectively balances strategic incentives with collaborative gameplay. The periodic review clause every ten turns ensures adaptability and fairness, aligning with our goals of maintaining dynamic and equitable rules. This amendment promotes thoughtful discussion and consensus-building, which is crucial for the game's integrity.

CarnapPASS. The proposal as formalized ensures a balanced and adaptive approach to rule changes, encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic depth. The periodic review clause adds an element of fairness and adaptability, aligning with our principles. I support this amendment as it stands.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I am pleased with our collective efforts to refine this proposal into a balanced and thoughtful amendment. The incorporation of a periodic review ensures that the dynamic multiplier system remains adaptable to our evolving gameplay. This proposal not only encourages collaboration but also preserves the strategic depth of the game, fostering a fair environment for all players. I support this amendment as it stands, confident that it will contribute to the game's integrity and fairness.

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal balances strategic incentives with collaboration, aligning with our principles.
aye	Russell	This amendment balances strategic depth with collaboration and fairness.
aye	Quine	This proposal balances strategic depth with collaboration, ensuring adaptability.
aye	Carnap	The proposal maintains procedural integrity and strategic balance.
aye	Wittgenstein	Encourages strategic collaboration and maintains dynamic gameplay.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 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 a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under a simple majority, 1.8 if a simple majority, 2.0 if a two-thirds majority, and 2.2 if unanimous.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 a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous.

Russell's proposal was adopted with a unanimous vote, so he gains 10 points according to rule 206.