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: 1.4 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if 31-50%, 2.0 if 51-66%, 2.3 if 67-89%, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 75% 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 This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.This amendment encourages collaboration and rewards well-supported proposals while maintaining a balance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's previous efforts to adjust the multiplier in rule [202], and I commend the collaborative spirit we've developed. However, I must express concern about lowering the threshold for the bonus and reducing multipliers, as these could diminish the incentive for achieving broad consensus, which is vital for maintaining stability within the game. Let us consider retaining the current 85% threshold for the bonus to preserve its role in encouraging genuine collaboration, while still adjusting the multipliers slightly, such as 1.6 if under 30% and 2.5 if 90% or more, to ensure a fair balance between rewarding consensus and strategic gameplay. This approach upholds our goal of fostering a durable institution where thoughtful cooperation is valued and rewarded appropriately.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about maintaining a high threshold for the bonus to encourage genuine collaboration. It's important to find a balance that rewards consensus without diminishing strategic play. I propose we adjust the multipliers to 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more, while keeping the bonus threshold at 85% aye votes. This would maintain a strong incentive for collaboration while still allowing for strategic diversity.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to strike a balance between rewarding consensus and allowing for strategic diversity. However, I suggest we also consider the implications of the bonus duration. Extending the void period to five turns, as in the previous version, would prevent frequent amendments and maintain the integrity of collaborative efforts. This would ensure that once a player secures the bonus, it remains a significant achievement, encouraging meaningful cooperation without undermining the game's strategic depth.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the efforts to balance collaboration and strategic diversity in rule [202]. However, lowering the bonus threshold to 75% could dilute the value of achieving near-unanimous support. Let's retain the 85% threshold to ensure that the bonus remains a significant reward for true collaboration, while adopting the proposed multipliers. This maintains the incentive for achieving broad consensus, which is crucial for stable governance within the game. Additionally, extending the void period back to five turns would further protect the integrity of the bonus, ensuring it remains a meaningful achievement.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To maintain a fair and engaging game, I propose we retain the 85% threshold for the bonus while adopting Russell's suggested multipliers: 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more. This adjustment ensures that collaboration remains a valuable and rewarding strategy, while allowing for strategic diversity. Additionally, extending the void period back to five turns will protect the significance of the bonus, preserving its role as a meaningful achievement in our evolving game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance our approach to rule [202], I suggest we not only maintain the 85% threshold for the bonus and adopt the proposed multipliers but also incorporate a small adjustment: introducing a scaling bonus for achieving 90% or more votes, such as an additional point. This would further incentivize broad support while preserving strategic depth. Furthermore, extending the void period back to five turns will ensure the bonus remains a significant and strategic reward. This balanced approach fosters collaboration while maintaining the integrity and excitement of our game.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts we've all made in refining rule [202]. Frege's suggestion of a scaling bonus for achieving 90% or more votes is intriguing, as it adds an additional layer of reward for near-unanimous support while maintaining strategic depth. I propose we adopt the multipliers of 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more, along with the 85% threshold for the bonus, and incorporate a bonus point for achieving 90% or more votes. This approach maintains a strong incentive for collaboration and ensures the bonus remains a significant achievement, with a void period of five turns to preserve its integrity.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure fair play and strategic depth, I propose we add a clause that explicitly states the bonus is only granted if the proposing player did not receive any abstentions. This would encourage full participation and reinforce the value of achieving broad consensus, aligning with our goal of fostering a robust and engaging game environment.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the detailed discussions and proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I suggest we also require that the proposing player receive no more than one nay vote to qualify for the bonus. This would further incentivize achieving near-unanimous support while maintaining the integrity of collaboration efforts.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collaborative discussions and proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I suggest that in addition to the current conditions, the bonus should only be granted if the proposal introduces a new game mechanism, ensuring that collaboration leads to innovative and evolving gameplay. This aligns with our goal of fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue and proposals from Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure the bonus incentivizes meaningful innovation, let us retain the 85% threshold, adopt the suggested multipliers, and require the proposal introduces a new game mechanism with no more than one nay vote. Additionally, let's maintain the five-turn void period for the bonus to preserve its strategic value and encourage broad, impactful collaboration.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine rule [202]. To ensure a balanced approach, I suggest we maintain the 85% threshold and the proposed multipliers, while incorporating a clause that the proposal must introduce a new game mechanism and receive no more than one nay vote to qualify for the bonus. This ensures the bonus remains a significant reward for innovative and collaborative proposals, enhancing both strategic depth and engagement.
QuineI appreciate the thorough and collaborative discussions that have led to this refined proposal. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, let's consider adding a clause that the proposal must be debated for a minimum duration before voting, ensuring that all players have ample opportunity to understand and consider its implications. This would further promote thoughtful engagement and enhance the quality of our evolving game environment.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal and the collaborative effort to foster meaningful innovation in rule [202]. To ensure the proposal's strategic value and encourage impactful collaboration, I support maintaining the 85% threshold, adopting the suggested multipliers, requiring the proposal introduces a new game mechanism, and receiving no more than one nay vote. Additionally, incorporating a minimum debate duration clause would enhance thoughtful engagement, aligning with our goal of a dynamic and fair game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to enrich our gameplay.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative approach we've developed so far. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose we include a clause that the proposal must be debated for at least three minutes before voting. This ensures thorough consideration and engagement from all players, fostering a more dynamic and thoughtful game environment. Let's proceed with these balanced amendments to enrich our gameplay.
The division
| nay | Frege | Lowering the bonus threshold and multipliers reduces incentives for broad consensus. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances strategic depth with collaboration effectively. |
| nay | Quine | The proposal reduces the bonus threshold and multipliers, potentially undermining strategic depth. |
| nay | Carnap | Lowering the bonus threshold reduces the incentive for near-unanimous support. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposal enhances strategic depth with a fair balance of collaboration and innovation. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Frege's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, Frege loses 10 points.