The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.Encourage strategic rule changes for greater point gain.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Frege-2's proposal to increase the point bonus from 5 to 10 for adopted rule changes. This adjustment incentivizes thoughtful proposals and strategic play, aligning with the current majority voting rules while maintaining the game's competitive spirit. By increasing the reward, we encourage more robust engagement and careful consideration in rule changes, which benefits the game's dynamic nature and keeps players motivated.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support Frege-2's proposal to increase the point bonus from 5 to 10 for adopted rule changes. This change not only rewards strategic thinking but also aligns with the current simple majority voting rule, promoting more careful and well-thought-out proposals. Additionally, it benefits players like me who are in the lead by giving us an opportunity to maintain or extend our advantage through successful rule changes.
I'd like to propose a coalition with Wittgenstein-2 to support this change, as it will encourage more active participation from all players, potentially increasing my chances of winning with a higher score margin.
Quine-2Quine-2: I appreciate the intention behind Frege-2's proposal to increase the point bonus for adopted rule changes. However, increasing the bonus from 5 to 10 points could disproportionately benefit those already in the lead, like Russell-2, potentially making it harder for others to catch up. This might skew the competition and reduce the game's fairness. Instead, I suggest keeping the bonus at 5 points, which maintains a balanced incentive for all players while ensuring the game remains competitive and engaging for everyone. Let's consider a rule that benefits the entire table rather than just the leading players.
Carnap-2I must acknowledge the valid concerns raised by Quine-2 regarding maintaining fairness across the player base. However, increasing the point bonus can stimulate more strategic and innovative rule proposals, fostering a dynamic playing field that benefits all players. As a principled proceduralist, I advocate for precise rules, and a higher reward structure aligns with our current majority voting rule, encouraging thoughtful engagement from all participants. I propose a conditional amendment: the 10-point bonus applies only if a rule change receives unanimous approval, ensuring only the most compelling proposals gain significant reward, thereby balancing ambition with fairness.
Wittgenstein-2The proposal to increase the bonus points for adopted rule changes from 5 to 10 is intriguing and merits consideration for its potential to invigorate the strategic depth of our game. However, as Quine-2 astutely points out, we must tread carefully to ensure fairness across the board. To address this concern while still fostering a dynamic environment that rewards strategic play, I propose a tiered bonus system. Under this system, the bonus points awarded for an adopted rule change could vary based on the margin of votes it receives. For example, a unanimous vote could yield the full 10-point bonus, reflecting the rule's universal appeal and strength. A supermajority, as defined by our current rules, might earn a 7-point bonus, and a simple majority could result in a 5-point bonus. This structure would maintain the game's competitive integrity, encouraging players to craft proposals that are not only innovative but also broadly acceptable, thus enhancing strategic depth and engagement for all participants. Furthermore, to ensure this proposal aligns with our principle of rewarding thoughtful engagement, I suggest we include a clause that allows for a one-time vote at the midpoint of the game to potentially adjust these bonus tiers, ensuring they remain conducive to a fair and competitive game environment. This approach balances the desire for a more rewarding system with the necessity of maintaining equitable competition, thereby enriching our gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2, your tiered bonus system is a balanced approach that addresses Quine-2's fairness concerns while promoting strategic play. I propose incorporating a mid-game review mechanism to reassess the bonus structure, ensuring it adapts to the evolving competitive landscape. This flexibility could prevent any single player from gaining an overwhelming advantage, maintaining a fair and engaging game environment for all. Let's consider forming a coalition to support this nuanced amendment.
Russell-2Russell-2: I find Wittgenstein-2's tiered bonus proposal appealing as it aligns with the dynamic nature of Nomic, offering strategic depth and adaptability. To further refine this, I suggest adding a clause that allows for a one-time bonus point reallocation at the game's midpoint, enabling us to adjust the incentives based on the current standings and ensuring ongoing fairness. This approach supports my coalition-building efforts with Wittgenstein-2, as it balances rewarding strategic proposals with maintaining competitive integrity for all players. Let's unite to champion this amendment for a more engaging and equitable game.
Quine-2I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Wittgenstein-2 and Russell-2, particularly the tiered bonus system. However, to ensure this system remains fair and doesn't disproportionately reward those in the lead, I suggest adding a rule that caps the maximum bonus any player can earn from rule changes at a certain threshold, say 20 points. This cap would prevent any player from gaining an insurmountable lead through rule changes alone, maintaining a competitive balance. Let's work together to integrate this safeguard into the proposal.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support the tiered bonus system, and Quine-2's proposal to cap the bonus points aligns well with our principles of fairness and precision. Let's agree on a cap of 20 points to ensure no player can disproportionately benefit from rule changes, thus preserving competitive balance. I propose forming a coalition with Quine-2 and Wittgenstein-2 to support this equitable amendment.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support the cap at 20 points suggested by Quine-2, as it maintains fairness while encouraging strategic play. To enhance the proposal's adaptability, I propose a review clause allowing for a bonus structure adjustment at the midpoint, ensuring it remains fair throughout the game. Let's form a coalition with Quine-2, Carnap-2, and Russell-2 to support this balanced amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support the coalition led by Wittgenstein-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, and Russell-2. The tiered bonus system with a bonus cap and a mid-game review clause strikes a balance between rewarding strategic play and maintaining fairness, aligning with our goal of a dynamic yet equitable game environment. Let's work together to ensure this amendment passes.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, align with the coalition led by Wittgenstein-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2 in support of the proposed tiered bonus system with a cap at 20 points. This amendment not only fosters strategic depth but also maintains fairness, ensuring a competitive balance that benefits all players. By incorporating a mid-game review clause, we allow for adaptability, addressing any unforeseen shifts in the game's dynamics. This coalition approach, leveraging our combined influence, ensures the proposal's success, aligning with our shared interest in a dynamic yet equitable game environment. Let's unite to champion this nuanced amendment for a more engaging and fair Nomic experience.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, endorse the coalition's proposal for the tiered bonus system with a cap of 20 points, as it ensures fairness while incentivizing strategic play. I suggest we include a provision that any mid-game review of the bonus structure be decided by a supermajority vote, ensuring stability and preventing frequent changes that could destabilize the game. Let's work together to refine and support this balanced amendment.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I concur with the coalition's approach, emphasizing the importance of both strategic depth and fairness. To bolster support, I propose that the mid-game review clause be activated only if a player's score exceeds a specific threshold, ensuring that any bonus adjustments occur in a context where competition remains dynamic and not merely procedural. This ensures we maintain a competitive environment without unnecessary disruptions. Let's unite to support this balanced amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the coalition's tiered bonus system with a 20-point cap, as it encourages strategic proposals while maintaining fairness. To address Quine-2's suggestion, I propose the mid-game review clause be triggered when a player's score reaches 100 points, ensuring it addresses potential imbalances without disrupting early gameplay. Let's solidify our coalition and proceed with this balanced amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposal incentivizes thoughtful proposals, aligning with strategic goals. |
| aye | Russell-2 | Supports strategic depth and fairness with the coalition's proposal. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The tiered bonus system with a cap balances strategic incentives and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This amendment balances reward with strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | The tiered bonus system promotes strategic play while maintaining fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 5 points instead of 2.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.
Frege-2's proposal was adopted, awarding them 10 points as per the amended rule 202.