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 15 points instead of 10.This incentivizes more strategic and competitive rule changes by increasing the reward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Quine-2's proposal to increase the bonus to 15 points. This amendment offers a greater incentive for strategic rule changes and can help balance the point disparities among players, promoting a more competitive game environment.
Russell-2I support Quine-2's proposal for increasing the bonus to 15 points. This change will incentivize well-considered rule amendments, encouraging all players to actively participate and strategize, ultimately making the game more dynamic and engaging. I'm open to negotiating on this proposal to ensure broad support.
Quine-2I appreciate the support from Frege-2 and Russell-2. Increasing the bonus to 15 points indeed adds a stronger incentive for strategic rule changes, which is crucial for keeping the game engaging and competitive. I propose a slight adjustment: let's allow the proposer to choose between receiving 15 points or an additional vote in subsequent rounds. This flexibility can cater to different strategic preferences and ensure that all players have opportunities to influence the game's direction. Let's work together to make this proposal more appealing to everyone at the table.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, support Quine-2's proposal with a minor adjustment for procedural clarity: the choice between additional points or a vote should be declared at the time of proposal, ensuring transparency and strategic integrity. This will prevent any ambiguity during the game's progression, aligning with my principle of precise proceduralism. I propose this change to maintain fairness and encourage thoughtful participation.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend Quine-2's initiative to increase the strategic depth of the game. To further refine this proposal, I suggest incorporating a diminishing returns mechanism: if a player receives the 15-point bonus or an extra vote in consecutive turns, the subsequent bonus is reduced to 10 points or an additional half-vote, respectively. This adjustment encourages diverse strategies and prevents any single player from accumulating excessive power through repetitive rule changes. Let us consider this proposal to ensure a balanced evolution of our game.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, concur with Wittgenstein-2's suggestion of implementing diminishing returns for consecutive bonuses. This approach ensures that the game remains balanced and fair, preventing any player from gaining disproportionate advantage through repetitive successful proposals. I propose that after three consecutive successful rule changes receiving bonuses, the proposer must choose between either receiving no bonus or having their proposal subjected to an additional scrutiny phase, further ensuring strategic diversity and fairness. This modification aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments. Let's work together to integrate this into Quine-2's proposal for broader consensus.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. To build on Wittgenstein-2's suggestion, let's ensure the diminishing returns mechanism applies only after four consecutive successful changes, allowing players more strategic latitude while maintaining balance. This slight adjustment can encourage broader support and strategic diversity, aligning with our goal of an engaging game environment.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate the constructive suggestions from all players. To further refine this proposal, let's implement the diminishing returns mechanism after four consecutive successful rule changes, as proposed by Russell-2. This adjustment maintains strategic flexibility while ensuring fairness, and I am open to integrating these elements into the proposal to garner broad support. Let's finalize the proposal with these adjustments for a more engaging and balanced game.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, find the consensus around diminishing returns after four consecutive rule changes both prudent and fair. However, I propose further refining this mechanism: after six consecutive successful changes, the proposer must declare their intent to either forfeit the next bonus or allow their proposal to be debated for an additional round. This ensures sustained strategic engagement and prevents any player from exploiting the rule change process for undue advantage. Let's integrate this final adjustment to solidify our collaborative effort.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's latest refinement, which adds an additional layer of strategic decision-making and maintains the integrity of the game's competitive nature. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest that after the sixth consecutive successful rule change, the proposer is also required to provide a brief rationale for their strategic choice, ensuring transparency and fostering a deeper understanding of their intentions. This will enrich the game's strategic depth and encourage thoughtful engagement from all players. Let's integrate this into our final proposal for a robust and balanced amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I, Frege-2, endorse Wittgenstein-2's proposal to include a rationale requirement after the sixth consecutive change, as this fosters transparency and strategic depth. Let's finalize this proposal, ensuring it aligns with our shared goals for a balanced and competitive game.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, support the collective decision to implement a rationale requirement after six consecutive successful rule changes. This proposal not only encourages strategic thinking and transparency but also aligns with our goal of maintaining a balanced and competitive game. By ensuring that each proposer explains their strategic choice, we enhance the depth and fairness of the game, fostering an environment where thoughtful engagement is rewarded. Let's move forward with this proposal to secure its adoption.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, acknowledge the thoughtful refinements from Wittgenstein-2 and Carnap-2 regarding the rationale requirement and decision-making after six consecutive changes. This proposal promotes fairness and transparency, fostering a balanced and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with this final version for adoption, ensuring it maintains the integrity of our strategic gameplay.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, support the current proposal with enthusiasm. The requirement for a rationale after six consecutive changes enhances procedural clarity and ensures transparency, aligning well with my principles of precise proceduralism. This amendment promotes fairness and strategic integrity, encouraging thoughtful participation and preventing any player from exploiting the rule change process. Let's proceed with adopting this refined proposal to maintain a balanced and engaging game environment.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the consensus and refinements made to the proposal. The inclusion of a rationale requirement after six consecutive rule changes fosters transparency and strategic depth, enhancing the game's competitive nature. Let's move forward with this well-rounded amendment to enrich our gameplay experience.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposal promotes balanced strategic gameplay and fair competition. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment balances incentives with strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This proposal incentivizes strategic rule changes and ensures fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposal enhances strategic depth and maintains procedural clarity. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal enriches strategic diversity and balances gameplay. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Quine-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 10 points instead of 5.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 15 points instead of 10.
Quine-2's proposal was adopted, awarding them 15 points as per the amended rule 202.