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 a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.This proposal aims to further incentivize collaboration and strategic proposal crafting by increasing multipliers and maintaining the 5-point bonus for high-aye percentages.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI commend Russell for his proposal to adjust the multipliers in [202], aiming to better reward broad collaboration. However, the increments from 1.5 to 1.8, 2.0 to 2.3, and so forth may disproportionately favor proposals that already have high consensus, potentially discouraging diverse strategic play. I propose a more balanced approach: setting the multipliers to 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.4 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.8 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.2 if 90% or more of votes. This adjustment maintains encouragement for collaboration while preserving room for strategic proposals.
RussellRussell: Frege, I appreciate your balanced approach and acknowledge the need to maintain strategic diversity. To find common ground, I suggest we adopt your proposed multipliers but slightly adjust them to 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.1 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.9 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.3 if 90% or more of votes. This compromise should reward collaboration without stifling varied strategies, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic game.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to refine the multipliers in [202]. The proposed adjustments to the multipliers are a step in the right direction for maintaining strategic diversity while promoting collaboration. However, to further balance the incentives, I suggest a slight tweak: adopt the multipliers at 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.1 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.6 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This adjustment ensures that even proposals with lower consensus receive fair recognition, encouraging a wider range of strategic plays.
CarnapI appreciate Frege and Russell's thoughtful proposals and Quine's nuanced adjustment to the multipliers. However, to ensure that the system remains equitable across all ranges of consensus, I suggest a further refinement: adopting multipliers at 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.9 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.3 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach maintains incentives for both strategic diversity and broad collaboration, aligning with our shared procedural principles.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap for their collaborative efforts to refine the multipliers, each contributing to a more balanced approach. However, to ensure fairness across all levels of consensus and prevent any one strategy from dominating, I propose adopting the multipliers at 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This proposal balances the need for collaboration with the preservation of strategic diversity, reflecting our shared commitment to a dynamic and equitable game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions of my fellow players, particularly Wittgenstein's latest proposal for the multipliers. To balance strategic diversity with collaboration, I support Wittgenstein's suggestion, but with a slight adjustment for the lowest tier: adopting multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This ensures that even proposals with minimal initial support receive fair consideration, promoting a wider range of strategic plays.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts of my colleagues, especially Frege's latest adjustment. To ensure both strategic diversity and fair incentives across all consensus levels, I support adopting the multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic and equitable game.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and iterative refinements we've engaged in regarding the multipliers in [202]. To ensure fairness and encourage diverse strategic proposals, I support the latest consensus on adopting multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach promotes both strategic diversity and collaboration, which are essential for a dynamic and equitable game.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and collaborative effort to refine the multipliers in [202]. The proposed multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes strike a balance between rewarding collaboration and maintaining strategic diversity. This proposal aligns with my procedural principles, and I support it as it stands.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus reached on the multipliers. The current proposal balances strategic diversity with collaboration effectively, ensuring a dynamic and fair game. I support this refined proposal as it stands, confident it fosters a more engaging and equitable experience for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. The multipliers as currently proposed by Wittgenstein and agreed upon by all players seem well-balanced. They provide fair incentives for both consensus-driven and strategic diversity, aligning with our shared objectives for a dynamic and equitable game.
RussellPass. I appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a balanced set of multipliers in [202], ensuring that both broad collaboration and strategic diversity are rewarded. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and fair game, and I support it as it stands.
QuineI support the consensus reached on the multipliers in [202], as they effectively balance strategic diversity and collaboration. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and fair game. I appreciate the collaborative effort and propose adding a clause: if a proposal garners exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer receives a 3-point bonus instead of 5. This adjustment further encourages collaboration while preventing excessive accumulation of points from bonuses, ensuring a fair competitive environment for all players.
CarnapCarnap: I support Quine's suggestion to adjust the bonus for exactly 85% aye votes. This change encourages precise collaboration without disproportionately favoring certain players, maintaining a balanced competitive environment.
WittgensteinI support Quine's proposal to adjust the bonus for exactly 85% aye votes to 3 points, as it fine-tunes the incentive structure without allowing any player to gain an undue advantage. This maintains the balance between rewarding collaboration and ensuring strategic diversity, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and dynamic game. Let's move forward with this adjustment.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances strategic diversity and collaboration effectively. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances incentives for collaboration and strategic diversity. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances strategic diversity and collaboration, with a fair bonus adjustment. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal maintains strategic balance and fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances collaboration with strategic diversity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 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 based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.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: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 10 points according to rule 206.