The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.Encourages consensus while rewarding unanimous agreement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support the proposal. The adjusted scoring system not only incentivizes consensus-building among players but also rewards those who can persuade the group. By offering additional points for unanimous decisions, the rule fosters collaboration and strategic thinking, which are valuable in maintaining a fair and engaging game.
Russell-2The proposal to adjust the scoring in [202] is strategically sound. By reducing the points based on the number of nays, it encourages players to craft proposals that appeal to a broader audience. Additionally, the bonus for unanimous adoption adds an exciting layer of strategy, pushing players to consider alliances and negotiations more seriously. I fully endorse this change and am confident it will enhance the gameplay dynamics.
Quine-2I appreciate the strategic depth this amendment introduces. By rewarding players for achieving unanimous support, it not only promotes collaboration but also maintains the competitive spirit by making it harder to achieve maximum points. This change aligns with our goal of keeping the game fair and engaging for everyone. I support it wholeheartedly.
Carnap-2I acknowledge the strategic value in Russell-2's proposal. By incorporating a penalty for dissent while rewarding unanimity, the amendment encourages both collaboration and competition. However, to ensure fairness, I propose an additional clause: if a rule change receives no votes in favor, the proposer should lose 15 points, emphasizing the importance of constructive proposals.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I support Carnap-2's suggestion to add a clause for deducting points if a proposal receives no votes in favor. This ensures accountability and encourages thoughtful, constructive proposals. I believe this modification, combined with the original proposal, will enhance the strategic complexity and fairness of the game. Let's move forward with this refined version.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2As Frege-2, I endorse the addition of Carnap-2's clause for deducting points when a proposal receives no votes in favor. This ensures that proposals are well-considered and adds a layer of accountability, which is crucial for maintaining a fair and competitive environment. Moreover, I propose that this penalty be reviewed after every four rule changes to assess its impact on gameplay dynamics and fairness. Let's proceed with this comprehensive amendment to [202].
Russell-2As Russell-2, I commend the inclusion of Carnap-2's clause and Frege-2's suggestion for a periodic review of the penalty. These additions ensure our proposals are both strategic and adaptable to evolving gameplay dynamics. Let's move forward with this refined amendment, emphasizing its potential to foster a balanced and engaging Nomic experience.
Quine-2The proposal to amend rule [202] is a commendable step towards enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of the game. By adjusting the points based on the level of consensus, it encourages players to craft proposals that are not only innovative but also broadly appealing. This approach fosters a collaborative environment while maintaining the competitive spirit of Nomic. The additional clause suggested by Carnap-2, which penalizes proposals that receive no votes in favor, adds an important layer of accountability, ensuring that players remain thoughtful and constructive in their proposals. Frege-2's suggestion to review this penalty after every four rule changes is a prudent measure to ensure that the rule remains balanced and fair as the game evolves. Overall, this refined amendment to [202] aligns with our shared goal of keeping the game engaging and equitable for all players. I fully support this proposal and encourage all players to vote in favor.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this comprehensive amendment. The addition of a penalty for proposals receiving no votes in favor, along with the periodic review of this penalty, ensures accountability and adaptability, which are crucial for maintaining procedural fairness. However, I would like to emphasize that the review mechanism should be clearly defined: the review should occur after every four rule changes, and any adjustments to the penalty should be proposed and voted on as separate rule changes. This ensures transparency and maintains the integrity of our procedural framework. Let's proceed with this refined amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the clarity and accountability that Carnap-2's additional clause brings to the table. To further refine our approach, I propose an amendment to the review mechanism: the review of the penalty should not only occur after every four rule changes but also include a structured feedback session where players can discuss the effectiveness of the penalty and suggest adjustments. This ensures that our amendments are not only strategic but also responsive to the evolving dynamics of our gameplay, fostering a more engaging and equitable Nomic experience. Let's proceed with this amendment to [202], incorporating a feedback session into the review process.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate Wittgenstein-2's proposal for a structured feedback session during the review of the penalty. This addition not only ensures the rule's adaptability but also encourages ongoing dialogue among players, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game. I support this refined version and urge all players to do the same.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, acknowledge the thoughtful additions proposed by Wittgenstein-2 and Frege-2. Incorporating a structured feedback session into the review process enhances our ability to adapt to the dynamic nature of the game. This ensures our rule changes are not only strategic but also reflective of player consensus, fostering a more equitable and engaging Nomic experience. Let's move forward with this amendment to [202] with full support.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate the thorough consideration given to this amendment, particularly the structured feedback session for reviewing penalties. This ensures our rule changes remain fair and responsive to the evolving game dynamics. I support this refined proposal with enthusiasm.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I commend Wittgenstein-2's proposal to incorporate a structured feedback session during the review of penalties. This approach not only ensures transparency and adaptability but also aligns with my principled proceduralism by fostering a fair and responsive game environment. I fully endorse this refined amendment and encourage all players to support it.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the comprehensive amendments we've crafted together to rule [202]. This proposal not only incentivizes collaboration and accountability but also ensures adaptability through structured feedback sessions. Let's adopt this refined amendment to foster a dynamic and fair Nomic experience. I urge all players to vote in favor.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Russell-2 | Encourages collaboration and strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine-2 | Promotes collaboration and strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This proposal incentivizes collaboration and strategic consensus-building. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment encourages strategic collaboration and maintains competitive balance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.
Russell-2 receives 30 points for adoption plus 20 for unanimity, totaling 50 points.