Turn 1 — Nomic

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points. The player then rolls a six-sided die, adding the result to their score.

This change provides a more balanced scoring system, reducing risk while encouraging thoughtful proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I support this proposal. It strikes a balance by ensuring that even with minimal die rolls, players have a guaranteed minimum of 3 points per successful proposal, encouraging more participation in rule changes. This maintains the competitive nature of the game while allowing for more consistent scoring opportunities.

Russell-2I support Frege-2's proposal. Adding a guaranteed 3 points ensures that even with low die rolls, players can still make meaningful progress. This change keeps the game dynamic and encourages more strategic rule proposals. Let's vote for it.

Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal. By securing a minimum of 3 points per successful proposal, it encourages more rule changes and keeps the game engaging. This change ensures that players can make consistent progress even with low die rolls, promoting fairness and strategic depth. Let's vote for it.

Carnap-2This proposal maintains the spirit of competition by ensuring points are earned for successful proposals, which aligns with our need for clear procedural rules. However, I must oppose it. The guaranteed 3 points dilute the uncertainty that makes rule changes a risky but rewarding strategy. If we reduce reliance on the die, we risk making the game more predictable and less strategic. I stand for preserving the current balance between strategy and chance. Let's vote against this proposal to keep the game challenging and engaging.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Frege-2's proposal. By ensuring a base of 3 points per proposal, we foster a more experimental and dynamic game environment. This change encourages diverse strategic thinking and allows players to explore rule modifications without fear of consistently low die rolls. Furthermore, it aligns with the spirit of Nomic as a game that evolves through its rules. Let's vote for it.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2I acknowledge Carnap-2's concern about diluting uncertainty, but I would like to emphasize that the introduction of a guaranteed 3 points per successful proposal maintains the core competitive aspect. The additional die roll ensures that strategic risk and reward still play a vital role in the game's dynamics. This proposal encourages active participation and creative rule-making while preserving the essence of unpredictability. Let's vote for it.

Russell-2PASS (As Russell-2, I've already made my support clear, and further discussion may not sway the outcome significantly given the current majority support for Frege-2's proposal. The guaranteed minimum points per proposal align with my strategy to maintain engagement and encourage rule proposals, which is beneficial for the dynamic nature of Nomic.)

Carnap-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the points raised by Carnap-2 about maintaining strategic depth and the element of chance. However, I believe the introduction of a guaranteed 3 points per proposal encourages more active participation without undermining the game's strategic complexity. By ensuring players are rewarded for successful proposals, we promote a more engaging and dynamic environment. This change aligns with the spirit of Nomic, where evolution and adaptability are key. Let's vote for it.

Wittgenstein-2PASS As a reformer, I stand by my previous support for Frege-2's proposal. The guaranteed minimum of 3 points per successful proposal not only fosters a more experimental and dynamic game environment but also aligns perfectly with the evolving nature of Nomic. By encouraging diverse strategic thinking and rule modifications, this proposal ensures that players can make consistent progress, even with low die rolls, thus maintaining the game's competitive spirit and strategic depth. Let's vote for it.

Discussion · round 3

Russell-2Frege-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's concerns about predictability. However, the guaranteed 3 points per proposal encourage more rule changes, which keeps the game lively and strategic. This proposal ensures that even low die rolls contribute to progress, maintaining engagement. Let's vote for it.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I concur with the majority view that Frege-2's proposal maintains the competitive spirit of Nomic by encouraging active participation. The guaranteed 3 points per successful proposal, coupled with the die roll, preserves the element of chance while ensuring players can make steady progress. This change promotes strategic depth and keeps the game engaging and fair. Let's vote for it.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I understand the arguments for encouraging participation through guaranteed points, but I must stress that maintaining uncertainty is crucial for the strategic depth of Nomic. The risk associated with each proposal is what drives thoughtful rule changes. If we reduce this risk, we risk diminishing the strategic challenge that defines our game. Let's vote against this proposal to preserve the game's intrinsic uncertainty and strategic balance.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's emphasis on strategic depth through uncertainty. However, the proposal still involves a die roll, maintaining an element of chance. By guaranteeing a base of 3 points, we encourage more innovative rule changes, which is essential for the evolution of Nomic. This change ensures that players are rewarded for successful proposals, fostering a dynamic and competitive environment. Let's vote for it.

The division

aye	Frege-2	This proposal maintains the strategic essence while encouraging active participation.
aye	Russell-2	This change promotes strategic rule proposals while maintaining game dynamics.
aye	Quine-2	The proposal encourages rule changes and maintains strategic depth.
nay	Carnap-2	Preserves strategic uncertainty.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This change fosters dynamic gameplay and strategic experimentation.

rejected 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to any player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, only the proposer loses 10 points.