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 1 point.Ensures all players can score, reducing the risk of early losses and maintaining engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposed amendment to guarantee a point for a successful proposal is a strategic move. It incentivizes more frequent rule changes, thereby potentially lowering the threshold for adoption over time due to the provision in [203]. This aligns with our preference for measured amendments as it encourages incremental adjustments. However, we must be cautious of reducing the game's uncertainty and excitement, which are key to its strategic depth. I recommend supporting Russell-2's proposal, but let's ensure it includes a clause that allows for periodic reassessment of this rule to maintain balance. This amendment could serve as a foundation for future strategic plays, particularly as we approach the majority vote threshold.
Russell-2Russell-2: The proposal to guarantee a point for a successful rule change is a sound strategic move. It not only incentivizes rule changes but also maintains a level of predictability that aligns with our longer-term strategy to shift the voting threshold. By ensuring that each successful change yields a point, we reduce the risk of a complete loss from a failed proposal, thus maintaining momentum. Furthermore, this amendment can be leveraged to build a coalition with players like Quine-2 and Wittgenstein-2, who might also appreciate the reduced risk of losing points. I propose we support this amendment, possibly negotiating for a future adjustment if necessary, to ensure it remains balanced.
Quine-2I appreciate Russell-2's proposal for guaranteeing a point for successful rule changes, as it encourages thoughtful proposals and mitigates the risk of losing points. However, I am concerned that it might reduce the competitive tension that makes Nomic so engaging. To address this, I suggest a compromise: award 1 point for successful proposals, but introduce a condition that after every 5 successful proposals, the point reward drops to 0 for the next successful proposal. This maintains a balance between rewarding rule changes and preserving the game's inherent unpredictability. I support this amendment with the suggested condition, and I am open to further discussion to refine it.
Carnap-2I appreciate Russell-2's and Quine-2's contributions. The proposal to guarantee a point for a successful rule change aligns with our principle of minimizing uncertainty and maximizing strategic opportunities. Quine-2's suggestion to adjust the point reward periodically is a thoughtful compromise that preserves competitive tension while rewarding successful proposals. I support Russell-2's proposal with Quine-2's condition, ensuring that our strategic flexibility is maintained without sacrificing the game's unpredictability. This amendment, if adopted, could serve as a cornerstone for future strategic developments, particularly as we navigate towards the majority vote threshold.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support this amendment with Quine-2's condition. This approach not only incentivizes strategic rule changes but also aligns with our goal of evolving the game's mechanisms. By introducing periodic adjustments to the point reward, we ensure that the game remains dynamic and engaging, preventing stagnation. I propose we also consider a clause that allows for future reassessment of this rule, ensuring it adapts to the evolving game state. This flexibility will be crucial as we approach the majority vote threshold, allowing us to refine our strategies in response to new dynamics.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2The addition of Quine-2's condition to periodically adjust the point reward introduces a dynamic element to the game, maintaining its unpredictability while still encouraging strategic proposals. This compromise aligns well with our preference for measured amendments, ensuring that the game remains competitive and engaging. I support the proposal with Quine-2's condition, as it balances the need for predictability with the excitement of Nomic's inherent uncertainty. Furthermore, I suggest we include a clause for future reassessment, allowing us to adapt this rule as the game evolves, particularly as we approach the majority vote threshold. This flexibility will be crucial for maintaining strategic depth and ensuring that the amendment serves our long-term goals.
Russell-2I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2 and Quine-2. The periodic adjustment to the point reward keeps the game's competitive edge sharp, while still rewarding successful proposals. I support the proposal with Quine-2's condition, and I agree with the suggestion to include a clause for future reassessment. This amendment not only advances our strategy but also ensures adaptability, which will be crucial as we approach the majority vote threshold. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to maintain both predictability and excitement in our game.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I'm in favor of the proposal with Quine-2's condition to adjust the point reward periodically. This ensures that while we encourage strategic rule changes, we also maintain the game's inherent competitive tension. I also support including a clause for future reassessment to allow flexibility as the game evolves, especially as we approach the majority vote threshold. This amendment balances predictability with excitement, aligning with our goal of keeping Nomic fair and engaging for everyone.
Carnap-2The proposal with Quine-2's condition to periodically adjust the point reward, along with a clause for future reassessment, effectively balances predictability with competitive excitement. This strategic amendment fosters a dynamic and engaging game environment, encouraging thoughtful rule changes while preserving the essence of Nomic's uncertainty. I support this proposal as it aligns with our principles and strategic goals.
Wittgenstein-2The proposal with Quine-2's condition and a clause for future reassessment is a well-considered amendment that balances strategic predictability with the game's inherent excitement. I support this proposal as it aligns with our reformist principles, encouraging innovation while maintaining competitive tension. Additionally, I suggest we establish a specific timeline for reassessment, such as every five turns, to ensure the rule remains relevant and adaptable to the evolving game dynamics. This approach will help us maintain strategic flexibility and keep the game engaging as we approach the majority vote threshold.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2As Frege-2, I endorse Wittgenstein-2's suggestion to establish a specific timeline for reassessment, such as every five turns. This structured approach ensures the amendment remains relevant and adaptable, enhancing our strategic flexibility while maintaining the game's unpredictability. This proposal aligns with our goal of fostering measured, dynamic changes, which are crucial as we navigate toward the majority vote threshold. I support this refined proposal.
Russell-2I appreciate the addition of a specific timeline for reassessment. This structured approach ensures we remain adaptive and strategic, particularly as we near the majority vote threshold. By aligning our interests, we can foster a collaborative environment that supports measured, dynamic changes while keeping the game engaging. I support this refined proposal.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I support the addition of a specific timeline for reassessment, as it ensures our strategic flexibility while maintaining the game's dynamic nature. This amendment aligns with our goal of fostering a fair and engaging environment, and I am in favor of proceeding with the refined proposal as it stands.
Carnap-2I support the proposal with Quine-2's condition and Wittgenstein-2's specific timeline for reassessment. This ensures strategic flexibility and adaptability, aligning with our principles and maintaining the competitive tension crucial for an engaging game. Let's proceed with this balanced approach.
Wittgenstein-2I concur with the consensus on the refined proposal, which skillfully balances predictability and excitement by incorporating a periodic reassessment clause. This approach not only aligns with our reformist goals but also ensures that the game remains dynamic and strategically engaging as we approach the majority vote threshold. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The amendment incentivizes strategic rule changes while preserving game dynamics. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment balances strategic incentive with competitive excitement. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment encourages strategic rule changes while maintaining game balance. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This proposal maintains strategic flexibility and encourages thoughtful rule changes. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment incentivizes strategic proposals and maintains game dynamism. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 1 point.
Russell-2 gains 1 point for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.