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: 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 1.8 if 31-50%, 2.0 if 51-66%, 2.3 if 67-89%, and 2.6 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. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.This proposal aims to encourage collaboration and strategic voting by refining multipliers and the bonus structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's initiative to encourage collaboration with a higher bonus, but I have concerns about its potential volatility. The current bonus structure has served well in maintaining a balanced approach to collaboration and competition. Reducing the duration before a bonus becomes void from five to three turns might lead to excessive volatility, potentially destabilizing the strategic depth of the game. I propose maintaining the five-turn safeguard but am open to discussing a moderate increase in the bonus, say to 4 points, as a compromise. This would still incentivize collaboration without excessively risking the strategic stability we've managed to achieve.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about stability and volatility. Encouraging collaboration with a higher bonus is crucial for a dynamic game, but we must balance it. I propose a compromise: increase the bonus to 4 points, as Frege suggests, but keep the safeguard at three turns. This change maintains collaboration incentives while ensuring we don't compromise strategic depth. Let's discuss how this proposal aligns with our goals for a balanced and engaging game.
QuineI appreciate the compromise suggested by Frege and Russell to increase the bonus to 4 points while keeping the safeguard at three turns. This adjustment seems to strike a good balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic stability. I support this proposal as it stands, as it aligns with our goal of a fair and engaging game for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the proposed compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while keeping the safeguard at three turns. This adjustment seems to balance the need for collaboration with the stability of our strategic framework. I support this proposal as it stands, aligning with our procedural principles and maintaining fairness for all players.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This proposal effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic stability, aligning with our shared vision of a fair and engaging game. I support this proposal as it stands, confident it will enhance the dynamics of play for all participants.
Discussion · round 2
FregeThank you, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, for reaching a consensus on the proposed changes to [202]. I support the compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This proposal thoughtfully balances the encouragement of collaboration with the strategic depth of the game. Let's proceed with this amendment. PASS.
RussellPASS. I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the consensus reached on the proposed amendment to [202]. This balanced approach encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic stability, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on amending [202]. The proposed changes to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard effectively balance collaboration incentives with strategic stability. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game for all players, and I support it as it stands.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus reached on increasing the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This compromise aligns with our shared goal of encouraging collaboration without compromising strategic stability. PASS.
WittgensteinPASS. This amendment strikes a harmonious balance between promoting collaboration and preserving strategic depth, aligning well with our shared vision of a fair and engaging game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative spirit we've shown in reaching this consensus. The proposed amendment to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard effectively balances collaboration incentives with the strategic depth of the game. PASS.
RussellPASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus achieved. The proposed amendment effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic stability, and I support it as it stands.
QuineI appreciate the consensus reached on the proposed amendment to [202]. Increasing the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging collaboration and preserving strategic stability. PASS.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful deliberations that have led us to this well-considered proposal. By increasing the bonus to 4 points and maintaining the three-turn safeguard, we have struck a balance between encouraging collaboration and preserving the strategic integrity of the game. This amendment aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth, and I support it as it stands. PASS.
WittgensteinPASS. This proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined through collaborative effort, striking a balanced approach between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic stability. It aligns well with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game, and I support it as it stands.
The division
| nay | Frege | The proposal increases volatility contrary to strategic stability. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances collaboration incentives with strategic depth effectively. |
| nay | Quine | The proposal reduces multipliers, destabilizing strategic depth and increasing volatility with the shorter bonus void period. |
| nay | Carnap | The proposal undermines strategic stability by increasing volatility. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The amendment encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic depth. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal unless it passed with at least two-thirds majority.