Turn 50 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Adjusts thresholds and bonuses for balance and strategic depth.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the effort to adjust the multipliers and bonus threshold, but I must express concerns regarding the reduced bonus duration and the lowered threshold for collaboration incentives. Reducing the bonus from void after three turns to just two could discourage long-term strategic planning, as players might be less inclined to propose ambitious changes that could benefit the game in the long run. Similarly, lowering the bonus threshold from 85% to 80% aye votes might encourage more frequent, less thoroughly considered proposals, potentially leading to instability in our evolving rule set. To maintain a balance between encouraging collaboration and ensuring the stability and thoughtfulness of proposed changes, I propose a modification: instead of reducing the duration and threshold, we could consider adjusting the multiplier values to better reflect the level of consensus. For example, introducing a slight increase in the multipliers for higher consensus brackets could incentivize players to seek broader agreement on more impactful changes, without compromising the stability and strategic depth we value. Moreover, to address concerns about the longevity and impact of proposed changes, we might introduce a clause that allows a proposing player to secure a temporary immunity from the voiding of their bonus for changes that reach a specific threshold of aye votes, say 95%. This would reward highly collaborative and widely supported proposals, ensuring that impactful rule changes can be made with a degree of certainty regarding their permanence. In summary, while I recognize the intention behind the proposed amendments to [202], I believe that maintaining a slightly higher threshold for collaboration bonuses and considering adjustments to the multiplier values, rather than reducing the bonus duration, would better serve our collective goal of fostering a stable yet dynamic and collaborative rule-making environment. PASS

RussellRussell: Frege raises valid points about maintaining long-term strategic planning and ensuring thoughtful proposals. To strike a balance, I propose a slight modification: instead of lowering the bonus duration to two turns, let's set it at three turns but offer an additional incentive—a 1-point bonus if the change remains unaltered for all three turns. This approach maintains the current threshold for collaboration while adding an extra layer of motivation for stability. By doing so, we encourage both collaboration and careful consideration of the rule changes, ensuring a stable yet dynamic environment for all players.

QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's perspectives on maintaining strategic depth and stability. Frege's suggestion to adjust multipliers for higher consensus brackets could indeed incentivize broader agreement on impactful changes. However, I'm concerned about potentially discouraging proposals that might initially receive less consensus but are crucial for long-term strategy. A possible compromise could be to introduce a tiered bonus system: a base bonus for proposals with more than 80% aye votes, and an additional bonus for those exceeding 90% aye votes. This way, we reward broad consensus without discouraging proposals that might initially seem less popular. Additionally, maintaining the three-turn duration for the bonus, as Russell suggested, with an extra incentive for unaltered changes, seems a fair way to encourage thoughtful proposals while ensuring stability. This approach aligns with our goal of fostering a collaborative yet strategic environment. PASS

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's suggestions for maintaining strategic depth and stability. Frege's idea of adjusting multipliers for higher consensus brackets is prudent, as it encourages broader agreement on impactful changes. Russell's proposal for a tiered bonus system with an additional incentive for changes that remain unaltered is also wise, as it balances immediate rewards with long-term stability. This approach aligns with my principle of ensuring that rule changes are both collaborative and well-considered, fostering a dynamic yet stable environment. Therefore, I support a modified version of the proposal that includes both Frege's and Russell's enhancements, ensuring that collaboration is rewarded while strategic depth is maintained. PASS

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. Frege's emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and stability is crucial, and Russell's tiered bonus system with an additional incentive for unaltered changes is a commendable compromise. However, I suggest we also consider introducing a mechanism for periodic review of the multipliers and bonuses, allowing us to adapt them based on gameplay dynamics and player feedback. This would ensure that our rule-making environment remains both fair and responsive to the evolving nature of the game. Let's incorporate this adaptive mechanism into our proposal to further enhance our collaborative and strategic framework.

Discussion · round 2

FregeThank you to everyone for their thoughtful contributions. I appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion to include a mechanism for periodic review of the multipliers and bonuses. This adaptive approach can ensure our rules remain fair and responsive to changes in gameplay dynamics. Let's incorporate this mechanism to balance long-term strategic depth with the ability to make necessary adjustments, thereby fostering a collaborative environment that is both stable and dynamic.

RussellRussell: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine, and Carnap. The proposed adaptive mechanism for periodic review of multipliers and bonuses is a prudent addition, ensuring our rules can evolve with the game dynamics. Let's finalize this proposal by incorporating both the tiered bonus system and the adaptive review mechanism, thereby encouraging strategic depth and maintaining a balanced, responsive rule-making environment. PASS

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-rounded proposal, incorporating both strategic depth and adaptability. To further refine our approach, I suggest we include a clause for a special review process if a rule change significantly alters gameplay dynamics, ensuring any such changes are made with broad consensus and careful consideration. This addition would provide a safety net, allowing us to address unforeseen consequences while maintaining the flexibility and responsiveness of our ruleset.

CarnapPASS. I commend the collective effort to incorporate strategic depth, adaptability, and safety measures into our proposal. The inclusion of a special review process for rule changes that significantly alter gameplay dynamics is a prudent addition, ensuring such changes are made thoughtfully and with broad consensus. This approach aligns well with my principles of maintaining a stable yet flexible rule-making environment.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Quine's suggestion to include a special review process for significant gameplay-altering changes. To ensure thorough consideration, let's add a requirement that such reviews involve a supermajority vote, reflecting a broad consensus on the importance and impact of the change. This addition will help maintain stability while allowing necessary adaptations, ensuring our game remains fair and engaging for all players. PASS

Discussion · round 3

FregePASS. I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the proposal's evolution into a robust framework that balances strategic depth with adaptability. The inclusion of a special review process with a supermajority requirement for significant changes is a prudent measure to ensure stability and broad consensus, aligning well with our collective goals of fostering a collaborative and dynamic rule-making environment.

RussellRussell: Thank you, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, for the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. To further enhance our adaptability, I suggest we include a mechanism allowing players to suggest adjustments to multipliers and bonuses during a special review session every ten turns. This ensures our rules remain responsive and fair throughout the game, balancing strategic depth with ongoing player input. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to create a truly dynamic yet stable environment. PASS

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the comprehensive proposal that has emerged. To further enhance the adaptability and fairness of our rule-making process, I suggest including a mechanism for players to propose adjustments to the multipliers and bonuses during a special review session every ten turns. This ensures our rules remain responsive to gameplay dynamics and player feedback, fostering a balanced environment that encourages strategic depth and collaboration. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to maintain a dynamic yet stable game. PASS

CarnapPASS I appreciate the comprehensive proposal that has emerged from our discussions. The incorporation of mechanisms for periodic review and adaptability, along with a supermajority requirement for significant changes, aligns well with the principles of fairness and stability in our rule-making environment. This collaborative approach ensures that our game remains dynamic yet balanced, fostering both strategic depth and a fair playing field for all participants.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: Thank you, Russell and Quine, for the insightful suggestions. I believe incorporating a mechanism for players to propose adjustments every ten turns, coupled with the supermajority review process, provides a robust framework for adaptability and stability. This ensures our game remains fair and responsive to player needs while fostering a collaborative environment. Let's finalize this proposal to maintain a dynamic yet balanced rule-making process. PASS

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal maintains strategic depth and promotes collaboration.
aye	Russell	The proposal balances adaptability with collaboration and stability.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances strategic depth with collaboration, and the periodic review ensures adaptability.
aye	Carnap	This amendment balances collaboration and strategic depth.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances strategic depth and collaborative incentives effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 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 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three 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: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% 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 two turns.

Frege's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so according to rule 206, Frege gains 10 points.