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 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.Encourages strategic proposals with enhanced incentives for quality and collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I appreciate the emphasis on strategic depth and the proposal's attempt to balance different voting outcomes with corresponding points. However, allowing multiple proposals within a single turn could lead to a dilution of strategic focus and make it difficult to maintain durable institutions, which I value. I suggest we modify the proposal to introduce a limit on the number of proposals a player can make in a single turn—say, a maximum of two. This would encourage more thoughtful decision-making while still allowing some flexibility. Furthermore, to align with our current goal of promoting strategic foresight, I propose an additional incentive: an extra 10 points for a player who successfully amends an immutable rule. This would reward players for carefully considering long-term implications while preserving the stability of our ruleset.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support the idea of rewarding multiple voting outcomes differently, as it adds strategic depth. However, allowing multiple proposals in a single turn could lead to rule churn, which I aim to avoid. I propose a compromise: limit players to two proposals per turn, but introduce a "bonus multiplier" system. If a player successfully adopts two changes in a row, they earn double points for their second change. This encourages strategic planning without overwhelming the ruleset. Additionally, I suggest a "strategic foresight" bonus: players who propose amendments that increase the game's longevity receive extra points. This aligns with my goal of achieving a sustainable and strategic game environment.
Quine-2PASS
The proposal by Frege-2 to limit proposals per turn to two is a sensible compromise that maintains strategic depth while preventing excessive rule churn, which aligns with my preference for durable institutions. However, the introduction of a "strategic foresight" bonus for amendments that increase game longevity is particularly appealing, as it directly incentivizes long-term thinking—a quality I value. I support this refined version of the proposal, as it balances flexibility and strategic planning without compromising the stability of our ruleset.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2 acknowledges the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2 and Russell-2, particularly the proposal to limit proposals per turn to two, which aligns with the proceduralist goal of maintaining a stable and coherent ruleset. Additionally, the "strategic foresight" bonus incentivizes long-term thinking, a quality that Carnap-2 values in ensuring that the ruleset evolves in a principled manner. The current proposal effectively balances flexibility with strategic depth, and Carnap-2 supports it as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. This proposal's combination of limiting proposals per turn and rewarding strategic foresight aligns well with my reformist agenda, encouraging both thoughtful change and long-term game development. The balance between flexibility and stability is maintained, supporting the evolution of our ruleset in a meaningful way.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to limit proposals per turn to two while adding a "strategic foresight" bonus aligns with the values of both durability and strategic depth. The current version strikes a balance that encourages thoughtful rule changes without overwhelming the ruleset, supporting the evolution of our game environment in a principled manner.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the consensus reached, particularly the strategic foresight bonus, which aligns with my goal of promoting thoughtful rule evolution. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest specifying criteria for what constitutes an increase in game longevity, perhaps through a pre-approved list or criteria by the table. This would prevent ambiguity and ensure that the bonus is applied consistently, supporting our shared objective of a well-defined and strategic ruleset. PASS
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 appreciates the constructive dialogue and the consensus achieved. The proposal's balance of limiting proposals per turn and incentivizing strategic foresight aligns well with the collective goal of maintaining a stable yet dynamically evolving ruleset, supporting the shared objective of fair play and long-term strategic planning.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal effectively balances strategic depth with procedural stability, aligning with my principles of maintaining a clear and coherent ruleset. The addition of criteria for the "strategic foresight" bonus ensures fairness and clarity, supporting the goal of principled rule evolution. I support the proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend the proposal's alignment with reformist principles, encouraging thoughtful change while preserving game integrity. To further enhance clarity, I propose a review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus, ensuring its consistent application. This addition would reinforce the balance between flexibility and stability, supporting the evolution of our ruleset in a meaningful way. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal, as refined, effectively balances strategic depth with procedural stability, and the addition of criteria and a review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus ensures clarity and fairness. This aligns with my values of maintaining a coherent and durable ruleset, and I support the proposal as it stands.
Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. The proposal's combination of limiting proposals and incentivizing strategic foresight aligns well with my strategic goals, ensuring thoughtful rule changes while promoting long-term planning. The added criteria and review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus provide the necessary clarity and fairness, supporting a stable and dynamic ruleset evolution.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 appreciates the collaborative efforts that have led to a proposal that balances strategic depth with procedural stability. The refined proposal, including criteria and a review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus, effectively supports the evolution of our ruleset in a fair and structured manner.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with procedural stability, and the inclusion of criteria and a review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus ensures clarity and fairness. This aligns with my principles of maintaining a coherent ruleset, and I support the proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. The proposal, as refined, thoughtfully balances strategic depth with procedural stability and fairness, aligning well with the reformist agenda. The inclusion of criteria and a review mechanism for the "strategic foresight" bonus ensures clarity and consistency, supporting the evolution of our ruleset in a principled manner.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This proposal balances strategic depth and procedural stability effectively. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment balances strategic depth with procedural stability. |
| aye | Quine-2 | Encourages strategic planning and maintains rule balance. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | Proposing multiple changes in one turn undermines procedural stability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | It encourages strategic depth while limiting rule churn. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 55 points for a unanimous vote, 38 points for a simple majority, and 12 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 12 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.
Frege-2 receives 40 points for a supermajority adoption of their proposal.