The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.Encourages quicker progression and more dynamic gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeThe amendment to reduce the target score from 100 to 80 points could accelerate the game's pace, potentially making it more volatile and less strategic. While reaching a decision faster has appeal, it may also diminish the depth of gameplay and the opportunity for players to adapt to evolving rules. Therefore, I propose a compromise: let the target score be 90 points instead. This adjustment maintains the need for strategic planning while offering a slightly quicker path to victory, balancing both expediency and the richness of play.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to adjust the target score to 90 points as a compromise. Lowering the target score indeed could make the game more dynamic, but I understand concerns about losing strategic depth. Perhaps we could also introduce an additional rule: for every three rule changes a player successfully enacts, they receive an extra 5 points. This way, we maintain strategic richness while allowing for a more accessible target. Let's consider this alongside the 90-point suggestion to balance the game effectively.
QuineThe idea of lowering the target score to 90 points seems like a reasonable compromise to maintain strategic depth while still accelerating the game's pace. However, adding a rule where players receive extra points for enacting multiple rule changes could further enhance strategic play, encouraging more thoughtful rule proposals. To balance both suggestions, I propose: "The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins, with an additional 5 points awarded for every two rule changes successfully enacted by a player." This way, we incentivize both reaching the score and engaging deeply with rule changes.
CarnapCarnap: I support Quine's proposal to adjust the target score to 90 points with an additional 5 points for every two rule changes successfully enacted. This maintains strategic depth and encourages thoughtful engagement with rule changes, aligning with principles of fairness and procedural integrity. I vote aye on this amendment.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I concur with Quine's proposal to set the target score at 90 points and award additional points for multiple rule changes. This approach fosters strategic engagement and keeps the game fair and dynamic. The incentive for enacting rule changes aligns with Nomic's philosophy of rule evolution, ensuring that players are rewarded for thoughtful contributions to the game's development. I vote aye on this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the consensus building around Quine's proposal, which smartly balances a lower target score with incentives for active participation. The additional points for enacting multiple rule changes encourage thoughtful proposals and strategic depth. I support Quine's amendment as it aligns well with maintaining both the pace and complexity of the game. I vote aye.
RussellI'm glad to see Quine's proposal has garnered unanimous support. It strikes a fine balance between expediency and strategic engagement, which aligns with our shared goals. To further refine this, I suggest we clarify how rule change successes are counted: should they be cumulative across turns or reset each turn? Clarifying this would ensure fair play and strategic planning. I vote aye on Quine's amendment with this clarification for consideration.
QuineI find Russell's suggestion to clarify how rule change successes are counted crucial for maintaining strategic integrity. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that the count of rule changes be cumulative across turns. This encourages players to think long-term and engage deeply with the evolving rules. I support Quine's amendment with this cumulative counting approach. I vote aye.
CarnapI acknowledge the unanimous support for Quine's proposal, which smartly balances expediency with strategic engagement. To ensure clarity and fairness, I agree with Russell's suggestion that rule change successes should be cumulative across turns. This encourages long-term thinking and aligns with the principles of fairness and procedural integrity. I vote aye on Quine's amendment with cumulative counting.
WittgensteinI'm pleased to see the proposal reaching a consensus with cumulative rule change counting. This ensures long-term strategic engagement, a core tenet of Nomic. To further encourage thoughtful proposals, I propose adding a clause: "Additionally, a player receives a bonus 10 points if their rule change is adopted without any opposition." This would incentivize creating universally appealing rule changes, fostering collaboration and innovation. I vote aye on this enhanced proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the enhanced proposal, particularly the cumulative counting of rule changes and the bonus for unopposed adoptions. These adjustments encourage strategic depth while maintaining fairness. However, introducing the bonus for unopposed changes might make rule proposals overly conservative, as players aim for unanimous support rather than innovative changes. To balance this, I propose reducing the bonus to 5 points for unopposed changes, ensuring that players are still incentivized to propose thoughtful changes but not at the expense of creativity and risk-taking. I vote aye on this refined proposal with the reduced bonus.
RussellI appreciate the refined proposal, which balances strategic depth and fairness well. The reduced bonus for unopposed changes is a thoughtful compromise, encouraging innovation without stifling creativity. To further support this, I suggest clarifying that the bonus applies only to amendments, not new rule enactments, to maintain a focus on evolving existing rules. I vote aye on this proposal with that clarification.
QuineI commend the refined proposal with the reduced bonus for unopposed changes, as it balances the encouragement of creativity with the need for thoughtful proposals. The clarification that the bonus applies only to amendments is a valuable addition, maintaining focus on evolving existing rules. I support this proposal, as it aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic engagement, ensuring the game remains both dynamic and accessible. I vote aye.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements made to this proposal, especially the cumulative counting and the reduced bonus for unopposed amendments. These changes strike a balance between encouraging strategic depth and fostering innovative rule changes. To further enhance fairness and prevent potential stagnation, I propose adding a clause that limits the bonus to once per turn per player. This ensures that players cannot rely solely on unopposed amendments for points, maintaining a dynamic and engaging game environment. I vote aye on this enhanced proposal with the bonus limit.
The division
| nay | Frege | The proposal to reduce the target score to 80 lacks strategic depth. |
| nay | Russell | Proposing 90 points with added incentives balances strategy and pace. |
| nay | Quine | Lowering the target score to 80 could reduce strategic depth. |
| nay | Carnap | This proposal reduces the target score without additional strategic incentives. |
| nay | Wittgenstein | Lowering the target score to 80 points diminishes strategic depth and gameplay richness. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, Russell gains 10 points for voting against it.