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: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, 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 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.This amendment balances the point incentive structure while ensuring stability in rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intention behind the proposed bonus modification, as it aims to encourage collaboration and strategic thinking. However, the clause that voids the bonus if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns introduces unnecessary complexity and unpredictability. This could undermine the stability and fairness of the game, as players might be discouraged from proposing changes that could be beneficial in the long term. I propose we maintain the 5-point bonus, as previously established, with the existing restriction of it being a one-time reward per game. This approach continues to incentivize broad consensus without penalizing players for future strategic adjustments. Let's strive for clarity and stability in our rules, preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic.
RussellI appreciate Frege's emphasis on clarity and stability, which are indeed crucial for a fair game. The proposed change to reduce the bonus to 3 points and the clause voiding it if amended or repealed could discourage strategic rule changes. To maintain collaboration without adding complexity, how about we keep the 5-point bonus but extend its ineligibility to more than one proposal per game, say three? This way, players are still incentivized to seek consensus while having some flexibility in rule changes. Let's discuss this alternative to find a balanced approach.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's insights into maintaining clarity and fairness in the rules. The concern about the unpredictability of voiding the bonus is valid, as it could discourage thoughtful proposals. However, Russell's suggestion to limit the bonus to three proposals per game instead of once seems like a reasonable compromise, as it continues to encourage collaboration while allowing for strategic flexibility. I support this alternative, as it maintains the integrity of the game while still rewarding players for achieving consensus. Let's adopt this balanced approach to keep the game engaging and fair for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the discussion and Russell's thoughtful proposal to limit the bonus eligibility to three proposals per game. This maintains the spirit of collaboration without introducing undue complexity or instability. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest we specify that the bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns, rather than five. This shorter window should still discourage frivolous proposals while preserving strategic flexibility. Let's finalize this balanced approach to maintain the collaborative essence of Nomic.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's adjustment to the voiding period, which strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. This three-turn window is a sensible compromise that maintains the incentive for collaboration while allowing for necessary strategic adaptations. I support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to encourage thoughtful rule changes and collective engagement.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Carnap's adjustment to the voiding period, which indeed strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. This approach maintains the incentive for collaboration while ensuring that the rules remain adaptable to future strategic needs. I support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to encourage thoughtful rule changes and collective engagement.
**Proposal 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: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, 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 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns, and no player may receive this bonus more than three times per game."
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to maintain the integrity and engagement of our game.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. This approach maintains the integrity and engagement of our game while preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. This approach maintains the integrity and engagement of our game while preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.
**VOTE:** Aye.
WittgensteinPass.
The proposal as amended reflects a thoughtful balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic flexibility. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three instances per game aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. This approach ensures that the rules remain adaptable while still incentivizing players to seek broad consensus. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: PASS. The refined proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between fostering collaboration and maintaining strategic adaptability. The three-turn voiding window, along with limiting the bonus to three times per game, preserves the stability and fairness we value in Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced approach.
RussellPASS. The collaborative process has led to a well-balanced proposal that encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic flexibility. I support this approach and look forward to its implementation.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The balance struck between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic flexibility aligns with the principles of fair play and dynamic engagement in Nomic. Let's proceed with this refined rule change.
CarnapPass. The proposal seems to balance collaboration and strategic flexibility well, maintaining the collaborative spirit of Nomic. I support its adoption.
WittgensteinPass. The proposal effectively balances incentives for collaboration with strategic flexibility, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic and fair game. I support this well-reasoned amendment to [202].
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility effectively. |
| aye | Quine | The proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Carnap | This proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal balances collaboration with strategic flexibility, ensuring fair gameplay. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 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: 1.8 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.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: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, 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 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.
Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 15 points according to rule 204.