The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.Maximizes my score potential per turn for strategic advantage.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The incremental increase from 15 to 20 points for an adopted rule change aligns with our precedent of enhancing incentives for successful proposals. However, this change should be contingent on unanimous support, ensuring it doesn't destabilize the competitive balance. Let's consider coupling this with a modest increase in the voting threshold for such impactful changes, perhaps a simple majority with a minimum of four votes, to maintain fairness and encourage strategic depth. I propose this adjustment: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, requiring a minimum of four votes to pass." This balance should ensure that the increase is both rewarding and challenging.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, support Frege-2's proposal to increase the incentive for successful rule changes from 15 to 20 points. This adjustment maintains competitive balance by requiring a minimum of four votes, ensuring only well-supported changes are adopted. Let's focus on building a coalition to pass this proposal, emphasizing the strategic depth it adds to our game. I am open to discussing further incentives if we can ensure they don't disproportionately benefit any single player.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate Frege-2's thoughtful approach to balancing increased incentives with the necessity of maintaining competitive fairness. However, I propose a slight modification to ensure that this change encourages collaborative strategy rather than individual gain. Instead of requiring a minimum of four votes, let's introduce a conditional element where if a player receives unanimous support, they earn an additional bonus point, encouraging players to build consensus and collaborate. This way, we maintain the integrity of strategic depth while enhancing the rewards for cooperative success. Let's negotiate a consensus that values both individual initiative and collective agreement.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, support Frege-2's proposal to increase the points for a successful rule change to 20, as it aligns with our principle of rewarding strategic depth. However, I suggest we refine the voting condition to require exactly four votes, ensuring that this rule change is neither too easy nor too restrictive, preserving the procedural balance we value. This adjustment would maintain fairness while still incentivizing well-considered proposals.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2's proposal to increase the point reward for rule changes to 20 is a thoughtful step towards enhancing strategic depth. However, to prevent disproportionate advantage, I propose a nuanced approach: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, but only if the proposal includes a rationale that gains at least three affirmative votes in a preliminary rationale vote." This ensures that only proposals with broad support and clear reasoning are rewarded, maintaining fairness and encouraging thoughtful engagement.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2's suggestion for a preliminary rationale vote adds an insightful layer of strategic depth. I propose integrating it with my original idea: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, provided it garners a minimum of four votes and passes a preliminary rationale vote with at least three affirmative votes." This ensures robust support while promoting clear and thoughtful proposals, aligning with our shared value of measured amendments.
Russell-2Russell-2: I, Russell-2, appreciate the depth in Wittgenstein-2's suggestion for a preliminary rationale vote, as it encourages thoughtful proposals. To further enhance strategic depth, I propose we refine this to: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, provided it garners a minimum of four votes and passes a preliminary rationale vote with at least three affirmative votes, and the proposer must publicly justify their rationale to all players." This ensures transparency and accountability, fostering a more strategic and collaborative environment. I support Frege-2's integration of this idea, aligning with our goal of measured and fair amendments.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, acknowledge the collective effort to refine this proposal. Wittgenstein-2's preliminary rationale vote is a valuable addition to ensure thoughtful engagement. However, to maintain fairness, let's consider a slight modification: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, provided it garners a minimum of four votes, passes a preliminary rationale vote with at least three affirmative votes, and the proposer must publicly justify their rationale to all players." This maintains strategic depth while ensuring clarity and fairness in the process. Let's work towards a consensus that values both strategic innovation and collective agreement.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, support the proposed amendment as it stands, with the addition of the preliminary rationale vote, because it aligns with our procedural principles by ensuring clarity and broad support. However, to uphold fairness and prevent strategic manipulation, I suggest we introduce a stipulation that each player's rationale must be concise, limited to 50 words, to ensure transparency and prevent excessive deliberation. This maintains the balance between strategic depth and procedural integrity.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the constructive refinements suggested by Carnap-2 to limit rationale length to 50 words. This ensures clarity and prevents excessive deliberation while maintaining strategic depth. Let's integrate this stipulation to create a balanced and fair proposal that rewards thoughtful engagement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, provided it garners a minimum of four votes, passes a preliminary rationale vote with at least three affirmative votes, the proposer must publicly justify their rationale concisely within 50 words, and the rationale is recorded for transparency." This proposal aligns with our shared goal of promoting clear, thoughtful, and fair rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I concur with Wittgenstein-2's comprehensive proposal, as it not only ensures strategic depth but also maintains transparency and fairness. Let's finalize it by stating: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points, provided it garners a minimum of four votes, passes a preliminary rationale vote with at least three affirmative votes, the proposer must publicly justify their rationale concisely within 50 words, and the rationale is recorded for transparency." This proposal aligns with our shared goal of promoting clear, thoughtful, and fair rule changes, ensuring that every adopted change is well-supported and justifiable.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I agree with the current proposal. This amendment not only incentivizes well-supported rule changes but also ensures transparency and strategic depth. I propose we add a clause that any player who votes against the change but later supports a similar proposal within three turns gains an additional strategic consultation point. This encourages continued engagement and collaboration, even among those who initially disagree. Let's work together to ensure this proposal passes unanimously.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate Russell-2's addition of the strategic consultation point for future collaboration. However, to further ensure fairness and prevent potential manipulation, let's refine this clause by specifying that the strategic consultation point can only be earned once per player for each unique proposal type. This maintains the incentive for ongoing engagement while ensuring that the rule remains balanced and prevents any single player from disproportionately gaining from repeated similar proposals. Let's work towards a consensus that values both strategic innovation and collective agreement.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support the current proposal with a clarification: the strategic consultation point should be awarded only if the similar proposal receives a minimum of four votes, ensuring consistency with our voting threshold. This maintains procedural integrity and aligns with our collective goal of strategic depth and fairness. Let's move forward to secure unanimous approval.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's clarification on awarding the strategic consultation point. To ensure clarity and prevent any potential disputes, let's stipulate that the similar proposal must clearly outline how it differs from the initial one, ensuring each is considered on its own merits. This maintains our commitment to strategic depth and fairness, and I am ready to support this refined proposal.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness through comprehensive conditions. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This proposal rewards well-supported rule changes, enhancing strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness by ensuring robust support. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This proposal aligns with procedural fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal balances increased incentives with strategic depth and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 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 15 points instead of 10.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.
Frege-2 receives 20 points for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.