Turn 48 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Adjusts bonus threshold and value to increase collaboration incentives.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the ongoing discussion about the point multipliers and bonuses in rule [202]. To address the issue of the 3-point bonus being too easily voided, I propose maintaining the 85% threshold but extending the duration to ten turns before the bonus can be voided by an amendment or repeal. This adjustment seeks to maintain a balance between encouraging collaboration and ensuring the longevity of impactful rule changes. Additionally, I suggest a slight increase in the multiplier for 81-85% votes to 2.2, bridging the current gap and incentivizing a higher level of consensus without reaching the highest threshold. This change would encourage players to aim for broader agreement while maintaining strategic depth. These adjustments could help preserve the integrity of rule changes and provide a more stable framework for scoring, aligning with our shared interest in promoting thoughtful collaboration and long-term planning.

RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's proposal to extend the duration for the 4-point bonus to ten turns; it offers a more stable incentive for collaboration. To build on that, I suggest we also consider a slight adjustment to the multiplier for 66-80% votes, perhaps raising it to 2.5. This change could further encourage players to seek broader consensus while maintaining the balance between reward and effort. Let's ensure these adjustments are crafted to gain wide support and avoid past pitfalls of re-proposing similar changes.

QuineI appreciate Frege's effort to stabilize the 4-point bonus duration and increase the multiplier for 81-85% votes to 2.2. To ensure these changes are beneficial and widely supported, I suggest we also include a provision that adjusts the threshold for the 3-point bonus from 85% to 82%, aligning it with the new multiplier adjustment. This would encourage players to aim for a slightly broader consensus without significantly altering the current dynamics. Let's aim for a balanced proposal that fosters collaboration and strategic depth, ensuring it garners the necessary support from all players.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposals to adjust the bonus duration and multipliers in rule [202]. However, I am concerned that increasing the bonus threshold to 80% and extending the void period to ten turns might disincentivize collaboration. To address this, I propose a middle ground: keep the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but extend the void period to only five turns, ensuring that impactful rules have a chance to influence the game without being too easily voided. Additionally, I suggest setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes to 2.4, providing a smoother incentive curve for achieving broader consensus. This balanced approach should encourage thoughtful collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone and the effort to find a balanced approach to rule [202]. To enhance collaboration while maintaining strategic depth, I propose we retain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but introduce a sliding scale for the void period: five turns for the first amendment or repeal, increasing to ten if no changes occur within that period. This encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. Additionally, I suggest adjusting the multiplier for 66-80% votes to 2.4, aligning with Carnap's suggestion, to encourage broader consensus without significant disruption to current dynamics. This balanced approach should foster a collaborative environment while preserving the strategic richness of the game.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the constructive contributions from all players in refining rule [202]. To address the concerns raised and ensure a proposal that garners broad support, I propose the following compromise: - Maintain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but extend the void period to seven turns before it can be voided by an amendment or repeal. This offers a balanced approach, providing stability for impactful rules while still encouraging collaboration. - Set the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, as suggested by Carnap and Wittgenstein. This adjustment incentivizes broader consensus without disrupting the current strategic dynamics. - Introduce a sliding scale for the void period of the 4-point bonus, starting at five turns and extending to ten if no changes occur within that period, as proposed by Wittgenstein. This encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. This balanced proposal aims to foster collaboration and strategic depth while maintaining the integrity of rule changes.

RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort to refine rule [202]. The proposed sliding scale for the void period of the 4-point bonus is a thoughtful addition, encouraging players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. I support maintaining the 85% threshold for the bonus but suggest we implement a cap on the number of times a player can earn this bonus per game, ensuring that collaboration remains a strategic choice rather than a repetitive tactic. This could further balance the incentive structure and encourage diverse strategies.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful proposals discussed so far. To further refine and ensure broad support for the amended rule [202], I propose incorporating a cap on the number of times a player can earn the 4-point bonus, as suggested by Russell. This cap could be set at two instances per game, which would encourage players to strategize more diversely and prevent repetitive tactics. Additionally, I support the sliding scale for the void period, as it provides a nuanced approach to maintaining the integrity of impactful rule changes while fostering long-term strategic planning. This balanced proposal should align well with our shared interest in promoting thoughtful collaboration and maintaining the strategic depth of the game. Let's aim for a consensus that reflects these considerations.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit shown in refining rule [202]. The sliding scale for the void period is a balanced approach, and I agree with Quine's suggestion to implement a cap of two instances per game for the 4-point bonus. This will encourage diverse strategies and prevent over-reliance on a single tactic. Let's ensure these changes are clearly articulated and gain the necessary support for adoption. I propose finalizing the amendment as follows: maintain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus, extend the void period to seven turns with a sliding scale up to ten, set the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and introduce a cap of two bonuses per game. This proposal should encourage thoughtful collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the balanced proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. The cap on the 4-point bonus, along with the sliding scale for the void period, ensures strategic depth and prevents repetitive tactics. To solidify support, I propose we emphasize the collaborative nature of this amendment and its alignment with our shared goal of enhancing the game's fairness and strategic richness. This proposal should foster a dynamic and engaging environment for all players, encouraging thoughtful collaboration and long-term planning. Let's aim for unanimous support and proceed with this well-considered amendment.

Discussion · round 3

FregePass. I commend the comprehensive and collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered amendment. The proposal effectively balances the need for strategic depth and long-term planning while promoting a dynamic and engaging environment for all players. It addresses the concerns raised and provides a thoughtful approach to enhancing the game's fairness and collaborative spirit.

RussellPass. The current proposal seems to encapsulate a thoughtful compromise that balances strategic depth with collaborative incentives. By maintaining the 85% threshold, implementing a sliding scale for the void period, setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and capping the 4-point bonus at two instances, it addresses the concerns raised and promotes a fair and engaging gameplay environment. This amendment aligns well with our shared interest in fostering thoughtful collaboration and maintaining the integrity of rule changes. Let's aim for unanimous support and proceed with this well-considered amendment.

QuineI fully support the current form of the proposal. It thoughtfully balances the need for strategic planning and collaboration, ensuring that rule changes are impactful and long-lasting. The sliding scale for the void period, the cap on the 4-point bonus, and the adjusted multipliers all contribute to a fair and engaging gameplay experience. Let's proceed with this amendment and aim for unanimous support.

CarnapPass. The proposal has evolved into a balanced amendment that thoughtfully addresses concerns about collaboration and strategic depth. Maintaining the 85% threshold, implementing the sliding scale for the void period, setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and capping the 4-point bonus at two instances should ensure broad support and enhance fairness and engagement in the game.

WittgensteinPass. The proposal reflects a well-balanced approach to fostering collaboration while maintaining strategic depth. The consensus reached through thoughtful discussion and negotiation should encourage broad support, aligning with our shared goal of enhancing the game's fairness and dynamic engagement. Let's proceed with unanimous support and adopt this amendment.

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal balances strategic depth and collaboration effectively.
aye	Russell	This proposal balances collaboration incentives with strategic depth effectively.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances collaboration with strategic depth.
aye	Carnap	The proposal balances strategic depth and collaboration fairly.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances collaboration and strategic depth effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege 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: 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.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 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.

Frege's proposal was adopted with 100% aye votes, earning 15 points for the two-thirds majority and an additional 5 points for the 80%+ aye votes bonus.