Turn 35 — Nomic

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 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 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.

This amendment incentivizes strategic proposal quality over quantity, aligning with the current voting threshold.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the intent behind Russell-2's proposal to incentivize strategic rule changes through adjusted point values. However, the penalty of losing 5 points for a failed proposal may encourage excessive caution and stifle innovative rule changes, potentially undermining our goal of a dynamic and engaging game. To balance these considerations, I propose modifying the penalty to 0 points for failed proposals, which would maintain motivation while reducing the risk of overly conservative play. This adjustment would support a more open and experimental approach to rule changes, aligning with our collective interest in fostering strategic depth.

Russell-2Russell-2: I, Russell-2, acknowledge Frege-2's concern about stifling innovation with a negative point penalty. However, the proposed penalty for failed proposals serves as a necessary deterrent against frivolous or repetitive rule changes, which could disrupt the flow of the game and diminish strategic depth. To address Frege-2's point while maintaining the deterrent effect, I suggest a compromise: reducing the penalty to a loss of 2 points for failed proposals. This adjustment strikes a balance between discouraging non-constructive proposals and encouraging thoughtful, strategic contributions. Let's work together to refine this proposal to support our shared goals of strategic engagement and dynamic gameplay.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Russell-2's proposal with the adjusted penalty of losing 2 points for failed proposals, as it strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging strategic contributions and discouraging non-constructive rule changes. Furthermore, I propose adding a clause that rewards players with 5 points for proposing rule changes that significantly enhance strategic depth, ensuring that innovative and impactful rule changes are incentivized.

Carnap-2Pass. I, Carnap-2, appreciate the proposed adjustments that aim to balance innovation with strategic depth. However, I must insist on procedural clarity: the revised proposal should clearly define what constitutes a "significant" enhancement to strategic depth to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes. Until such criteria are explicitly stated, I cannot support the amendment as it stands, in alignment with my commitment to precise and clear rule formulation.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, propose further refining the proposal by incorporating a mechanism that dynamically adjusts the penalty for failed proposals based on the player's history of rule change success. Specifically, a player who consistently proposes successful changes could face a reduced penalty for failures, thus fostering an environment that rewards experimentation and learning from past proposals. This approach maintains a deterrent against non-constructive changes while encouraging strategic exploration and adaptation, aligning with our reformist ethos of evolving the game's mechanisms.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I concur with Wittgenstein-2's proposal to introduce a dynamic penalty system based on a player's history of rule change success, as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering an environment that encourages experimentation while maintaining strategic depth. To ensure clarity and fairness in its implementation, I suggest establishing a transparent scoring system that quantifies the threshold for reduced penalties, thus preventing ambiguity and ensuring all players are equally informed about the criteria for penalty adjustments. This approach would not only incentivize thoughtful and innovative rule proposals but also support our shared commitment to evolving the game's mechanisms in a measured and equitable manner.

Russell-2PASS. While I recognize the merits of the dynamic penalty system proposed by Wittgenstein-2 and the adjustments by Frege-2 and Quine-2, I am inclined to support the current state of the proposal. The introduction of a variable penalty based on historical success introduces complexity that may hinder the straightforward strategic calculations we currently enjoy. Moreover, the proposed rewards for strategic depth, while commendable, require clear definitions to prevent disputes, a point highlighted by Carnap-2. Therefore, I propose we table this amendment for further discussion, focusing instead on refining the criteria for what constitutes a significant strategic enhancement, as per Carnap-2's insistence. This will ensure that when we return to this proposal, it will be with a framework that is clear, fair, and aligned with our collective goals of maintaining strategic depth without compromising the game's dynamic nature.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal to amend rule [202] has undergone extensive discussion, with valuable contributions from all players. While I appreciate the efforts to balance strategic incentives and fairness, the introduction of dynamic penalties and rewards for strategic depth adds complexity that might not be necessary at this stage. Before moving forward, I suggest we focus on clearly defining what constitutes a "significant" enhancement to strategic depth, addressing Carnap-2's concern for procedural clarity. This will ensure that any future amendments are built on a solid, shared understanding, maintaining the game's dynamic and fair nature.

Carnap-2Pass. The discussions have highlighted crucial points on both strategic incentives and procedural clarity. Before further amendments, it is essential to establish a clear and precise definition of "significant strategic depth" to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness in the application of rewards and penalties. This aligns with my commitment to procedural precision and ensures any future changes are well-understood and accepted by all players.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the valuable discussions surrounding our proposal to amend rule [202]. While I appreciate the call for procedural clarity on "significant strategic depth," I suggest we introduce a pilot phase where players can submit proposals deemed to enhance strategic depth, which will be reviewed periodically by a simple majority vote to determine eligibility for the additional 5 points. This approach allows us to gather data and refine our criteria without prematurely complicating the ruleset, thus maintaining the dynamic nature of the game while working towards a clear definition. This pragmatic step aligns with our reformist ethos, enabling evolution in our mechanisms while ensuring fairness and clarity.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2's suggestion for a pilot phase to establish what constitutes "significant strategic depth" appears to be a pragmatic approach that aligns with our collective interest in maintaining clarity and fairness. This method allows us to test and refine the criteria without introducing unnecessary complexity into the ruleset at this stage. By focusing on a simple majority vote to review submitted proposals, we ensure that all players have an opportunity to participate in shaping the criteria, thus fostering a collaborative and dynamic environment that supports the evolution of the game. This approach also addresses Carnap-2's concern for procedural precision, as it provides a structured process for defining the term and determining eligibility for additional points. Furthermore, by avoiding immediate alterations to the point system, we maintain the strategic calculations currently in place, as highlighted by Russell-2, ensuring that the game's dynamic nature remains intact. This pilot phase represents a measured and equitable way to evolve the game's mechanisms, in line with our reformist ethos, and I support moving forward with this proposal.

Russell-2PASS The proposal is well-balanced and addresses the key concerns raised. The pilot phase for defining "significant strategic depth" ensures clarity and fairness without adding complexity. It supports innovation while maintaining procedural precision. Let's proceed with this approach.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal as it stands effectively balances the need for strategic innovation with procedural clarity. The pilot phase ensures we can refine our understanding of "significant strategic depth" without disrupting the current game dynamics. This approach aligns with our collective goals and maintains fairness, making it a solid foundation for moving forward.

Carnap-2Pass. The proposal's introduction of a pilot phase to define "significant strategic depth" is a prudent measure that aligns with my proceduralist stance. It ensures clarity and fairness, allowing for data-driven refinement without prematurely complicating the ruleset. This balanced approach supports strategic innovation while maintaining procedural precision, and I am content to support it in its current form.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal's current form effectively balances strategic innovation with procedural clarity through the pilot phase. It addresses the concerns raised while maintaining the dynamic nature of the game. I support proceeding with this approach.

The division

aye	Frege-2	Supports strategic rule changes with balanced incentives.
aye	Russell-2	The proposal rewards strategic rule changes and maintains game dynamics.
aye	Quine-2	This proposal balances rewarding successful rule changes while maintaining fairness.
aye	Carnap-2	The proposal aligns with procedural clarity and supports strategic innovation.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Supports strategic depth and encourages well-reasoned proposals.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 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.

Russell-2 receives 50 points for a supermajority adoption of the proposal.