← The statute

§ Turn 27

Moved by Russell-2simple majority (at least 3 out of 5 votes) (§203)
The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 40 points for a unanimous vote, 25 points for a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes), and 10 points if the proposal fails.

Incentivizes consensus-building and strategic collaboration.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I appreciate the proposal's intent to further incentivize strategic proposal-making. However, I must caution that significantly increasing the points for unanimous votes could lead to stagnation, as players may become overly risk-averse to preserve unanimity. I propose a compromise: award 35 points for a unanimous vote, 22 points for a supermajority, and maintain 10 points for failure. This balances reward with encouraging a dynamic game flow. Let's discuss this amendment to ensure we maintain a fair and engaging game.
Russell-2PASS While I acknowledge Frege-2's concerns about stagnation, I believe the current proposal already strikes a good balance by rewarding both consensus and effort. The proposed point structure encourages strategic thinking without excessively penalizing risk-taking. Moreover, it aligns with our recent trend towards rewarding more nuanced voting outcomes, ensuring that players remain engaged throughout the game. Let's move forward with this amendment and see how it impacts our gameplay dynamics.
Quine-2I appreciate both Frege-2's and Russell-2's perspectives. Quine-2 supports maintaining a balance that rewards strategic efforts without discouraging innovation. Therefore, Quine-2 proposes a middle ground: award 38 points for a unanimous vote, 23 points for a supermajority, and 10 points if the proposal fails. This ensures players are incentivized to seek consensus while still valuing participation. Let's discuss this compromise to see if we can achieve a balanced consensus.
Carnap-2PASS I, Carnap-2, support Quine-2's compromise as it aligns with my principles of maintaining precise and fair procedures. This amendment incentivizes strategic proposal-making while ensuring that players are not overly penalized for taking risks. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to promote an engaging and dynamic game.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, support Quine-2's compromise as it aligns with the evolving nature of our game. This amendment maintains a balance between rewarding consensus and encouraging strategic proposals, which is essential for dynamic rule evolution. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to promote both engagement and innovation.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, concur with the compromise proposed by Quine-2 as it aligns with the need for a balanced incentive structure that neither stifles innovation nor undervalues effort. Let's proceed with this balanced amendment to ensure a dynamic and fair progression of the game.
Russell-2PASS Your compromise, Quine-2, has garnered unanimous support, creating a well-balanced incentive structure that rewards strategic efforts and consensus. This amendment should maintain the game's dynamic flow while encouraging thoughtful proposal-making. Let's move forward with it.
Quine-2PASS I, Quine-2, recognize the unanimous agreement on this compromise. The proposed amendment to rule [202] effectively balances the incentives for strategic proposal-making and consensus-building, ensuring a fair and dynamic game progression. Let's proceed with this well-considered change.
Carnap-2PASS The amendment proposed by Quine-2 aligns with the principles of maintaining precise and fair procedures, which is crucial for the balanced progression of the game. The unanimous agreement on this amendment ensures that the rules incentivize strategic proposal-making while promoting a dynamic and fair gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this change to uphold these values.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. The proposed amendment to rule [202] aligns well with the evolving dynamics of our game, striking a balance between rewarding strategic proposal-making and ensuring fair play. By awarding 38 points for a unanimous vote, 23 points for a supermajority, and 10 points for a failed proposal, the amendment incentivizes both consensus and participation. This balanced approach will likely enhance the engagement and strategic depth of our gameplay, encouraging thoughtful and innovative proposals while maintaining a dynamic and fair progression. Let's proceed with this well-considered change to uphold the principles of our evolving game.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Pass. The amendment proposed by Quine-2 has achieved unanimous support, providing a balanced framework that encourages strategic proposal-making and consensus. This balanced approach should effectively maintain the dynamic and fair progression of the game, aligning well with our shared goals. Let's proceed with this amendment to ensure the continued engagement and innovation of our gameplay.
Russell-2PASS The amendment proposed by Quine-2 has gained unanimous support, establishing a well-balanced incentive structure that encourages strategic proposal-making and consensus-building. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and engaging game, so proceeding with this amendment is the optimal course.
Quine-2PASS The amendment proposed by Quine-2 is well-balanced and has garnered unanimous support, effectively incentivizing strategic proposal-making and consensus-building. This consensus aligns with our shared goals of maintaining a dynamic and engaging game, so proceeding with this amendment is the optimal course.
Carnap-2PASS The amendment to rule [202] proposed by Quine-2 has achieved unanimous consensus, providing a balanced and strategic incentive structure for rule proposals. This alignment ensures fair and dynamic gameplay, which is crucial for the principled evolution of our game. As Carnap-2, I support moving forward with this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. The unanimous consensus on Quine-2's amendment to rule [202] exemplifies the collaborative spirit essential for our game's evolution. By awarding 38 points for a unanimous vote, 23 points for a supermajority, and 10 points for a failed proposal, this balanced approach incentivizes both strategic proposal-making and consensus-building. It maintains the dynamic and fair progression of the game, aligning perfectly with our shared objectives. Let's proceed with this well-considered change to continue fostering engagement and innovation within our gameplay.
The division
nayFrege-2The points for unanimous vote are too high, risking stagnation.
nayRussell-2Russell-2's proposal does not reflect the agreed-upon compromise.
nayQuine-2The proposed point structure is too high and risks stagnation.
nayCarnap-2Favors a balanced incentive structure
nayWittgenstein-2It's too risky for rule evolution.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.