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 50 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 40 points.Maximizes scoring opportunities while maintaining strategic depth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I appreciate Russell-2's proposal to increase the points for adopted rule changes. However, this change risks creating too much disparity in scores too quickly, which might undermine the strategic balance we've been aiming for. To address these concerns, I suggest we modify the proposal to adjust the points to 45 minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 35 points for a unanimous vote. This offers a balanced approach that incentivizes strong proposals while maintaining competitiveness among players.
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge Frege-2's concerns about balance and appreciate the suggestion to moderate the point increase. However, I believe the initial proposal of 50 minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 40 points for unanimous votes, will invigorate the game by encouraging more strategic and well-supported rule changes. To address concerns about potential disparity, I propose a compromise: let's adjust the proposal to award 48 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 38 points for a unanimous vote. This adjustment still enhances the incentive for strong proposals but offers a slightly more balanced approach that should satisfy both competitive and strategic interests. Let's discuss this further and work together to finalize the details.
Quine-2I agree with Russell-2's compromise to award 48 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 38 points for a unanimous vote. This adjustment maintains the strategic depth we desire while ensuring that no single player can gain an overwhelming advantage too quickly, which is important for keeping the game fair and interesting for everyone.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I uphold procedural precision and fairness. While Russell-2's compromise of 48 points minus opposition, with an additional 38 for unanimity, offers a middle ground, it still risks accelerating score disparities. To ensure procedural rigor and sustained competitiveness, I propose a further moderation: awarding 46 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 36 points for a unanimous vote. This refinement better aligns with the principles of balanced competition and strategic depth we seek to maintain.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate Carnap-2's commitment to maintaining fairness and strategic depth. To further refine the proposal while promoting balanced competition, I suggest awarding 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This adjustment should incentivize well-crafted proposals while preserving the competitive integrity of the game. Let's unite our efforts to ensure a dynamic and equitable evolution of our rules.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2As Frege-2, I acknowledge Wittgenstein-2's balanced refinement to award 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging robust rule changes and preserving competitive integrity. I support this proposal, as it aligns with my emphasis on measured amendments and ensures that all players remain engaged in a fair and strategically deep game environment.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, endorse the latest proposal by Wittgenstein-2 to amend rule [202] with awarding 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, plus an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This balanced approach promotes strategic depth and ensures fairness, aligning with my goal of maintaining competitive engagement. Let's move forward with this proposal.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Wittgenstein-2's latest proposal to amend rule [202] to award 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This balanced adjustment encourages strategic proposals while maintaining a fair and engaging environment for all players.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, endorse the proposal to amend rule [202] by awarding 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, plus an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This balanced approach maintains strategic depth and fairness, ensuring a dynamic and equitable game environment that encourages thoughtful rule changes. I stand by this proposal and will vote in its favor.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I, Frege-2, fully support the proposal as refined by Wittgenstein-2 to award 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This ensures a measured balance between encouraging strategic rule proposals and maintaining fair competition among all players.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I've observed a productive and collaborative negotiation process. The proposal to award 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, with an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote, has garnered unanimous support, reflecting a balanced approach that incentivizes well-supported rule changes while maintaining competitive fairness. This proposal aligns with our strategic goals of encouraging robust proposals and keeping the game engaging and fair for all players. I am pleased to see the consensus and will vote in favor of this amendment. Let's proceed with this change, confident in its potential to enhance the strategic depth and fairness of our game. PASS.
Quine-2PASS
The proposal to amend rule [202] has reached a consensus that balances incentivizing strategic rule changes while maintaining fair competition. I support the agreed-upon adjustment of awarding 47 points minus the number of players who voted against the change, plus an additional 37 points for a unanimous vote. This ensures the game remains interesting and competitive for everyone.
Wittgenstein-2PASS.
The proposal reached consensus through thoughtful negotiation, ensuring strategic depth and fair competition. Let's move forward with this balanced amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposal maintains competitive fairness with a balanced approach. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This proposal has reached a consensus with 47 points minus opposition and 37 for unanimity. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The proposal was refined to a balanced point system that maintains strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposed amendment maintains procedural fairness and incentivizes strategic rule proposals. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal enhances strategic depth and competitiveness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 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 points calculated as 40 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 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 50 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 40 points.
Russell-2 receives 50 points for the unanimous adoption of the proposal.