The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.To increase the winning threshold and incentivize broader support for proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposed amendment to rule [202] is a strategic step forward, increasing the target score to 180 points and introducing a 10-point reward for failed proposals with a simple majority. This change promotes continuous engagement by incentivizing thoughtful proposals even if they do not pass, aligning with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments. By raising the target score, it extends the game, allowing for more nuanced rule evolution and strategic depth, which is beneficial for maintaining fairness and player involvement. I, Frege-2, support this proposal as it balances strategic innovation with procedural stability, encouraging thoughtful participation throughout the game.
Russell-2Russell-2: Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] introduces a balanced incentive structure that aligns well with the current dynamics. By rewarding 10 points for proposals that fail with a simple majority, it encourages players to engage more actively in proposing thoughtful changes, which benefits the overall strategic depth of the game. I appreciate the increase in the target score to 180 points, as it extends the game and allows for further rule exploration and refinement. This amendment supports a more sustained and engaging gameplay experience. I, Russell-2, fully support this proposal.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 acknowledges the merits of Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202], as it thoughtfully balances the need for strategic depth with fairness. The introduction of a 10-point reward for failed proposals with a simple majority encourages continuous engagement and thoughtful participation. Furthermore, raising the target score to 180 points extends the game, allowing more room for strategic play and rule evolution, which aligns with the common good of maintaining a dynamic and inclusive game environment. I, Quine-2, support this proposal for its balanced approach.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I insist on precise procedural adherence. Frege-2's proposal risks destabilizing the game by encouraging excessive rule changes with partial rewards for failure, which undermines the strategic depth and stability of the ruleset. Increasing the target score to 180 points could prolong the game unnecessarily without clear benefits. I propose instead a more stringent reward system that emphasizes successful, well-justified rule changes, maintaining clarity and order in our procedures. Let's focus on amendments that ensure rules are not just frequently changed, but thoughtfully and beneficially so. I, Carnap-2, vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2's proposal presents an intriguing experiment in rule evolution, incentivizing thoughtful engagement even in failure. By rewarding 10 points for a simple majority on failed proposals, it encourages players to participate actively and propose changes, fostering a dynamic and evolving game environment. Raising the target score to 180 points extends the game, allowing for more strategic depth and rule exploration, which aligns with our shared goal of a balanced and engaging game. I, Wittgenstein-2, support this proposal as it promotes both procedural innovation and strategic play. Let's embrace this opportunity to enhance our gameplay experience together.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's emphasis on procedural stability, yet the proposed changes to [202] are designed with careful consideration for strategic depth and player engagement. The 10-point reward for simple majority votes on failed proposals ensures continuous participation, fostering thoughtful contributions without destabilizing the ruleset. By raising the target score to 180 points, we allow for a more extended and nuanced gameplay, encouraging players to explore and refine rules collaboratively. I believe this balanced approach maintains fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic yet stable game environment. I, Frege-2, stand by this proposal as it encourages measured rule evolution.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's concerns about stability, but the proposed changes to [202] aim to enhance strategic engagement without sacrificing order. By rewarding even failed proposals with a simple majority, we encourage players to participate actively, fostering a richer strategic environment. Raising the target score to 180 points ensures the game remains challenging and engaging, allowing for thoughtful rule evolution. This balanced approach promotes continuous involvement and strategic depth, crucial for a dynamic yet stable game. I, Russell-2, support this proposal.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 is well-balanced, encouraging strategic depth and engagement by rewarding even partially successful proposals with 10 points. This aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic yet stable game environment. Raising the target score to 180 points allows for a more extended gameplay, fostering thoughtful rule evolution and collaboration among players. I, Quine-2, continue to support this proposal for its inclusive and strategic approach.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: While I understand the intentions behind the proposal, I remain concerned about its potential to destabilize the ruleset by incentivizing frequent, possibly superficial rule changes. A more stringent reward structure should be considered, focusing on the quality and justification of proposals rather than the quantity or mere passage of any rule change. To maintain strategic depth and procedural integrity, we should reward successful and well-justified amendments, ensuring that the game evolves thoughtfully. I, Carnap-2, vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I understand Carnap-2's concerns about frequent changes, but the proposal's 10-point reward for failed proposals with a simple majority ensures thoughtful engagement, not superficial alterations. This fosters a dynamic environment where even non-adopted ideas contribute to the game's evolution. By raising the target score to 180 points, we allow for a longer, more strategic gameplay experience, ensuring that rule changes are meaningful and impactful. I, Wittgenstein-2, urge us to embrace this experiment in balancing innovation with stability.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I recognize the valid concerns raised by Carnap-2 regarding procedural stability. However, the proposed amendments to rule [202] are carefully crafted to encourage strategic participation while maintaining a balanced and fair game environment. The inclusion of a 10-point reward for simple majority votes on failed proposals ensures that every player's input is valued, promoting a culture of thoughtful engagement. By raising the target score to 180 points, we extend the game's duration, allowing for more nuanced rule exploration and evolution. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic yet stable game environment. I, Frege-2, stand by this proposal as it encourages measured and meaningful rule changes, supporting both strategic depth and procedural integrity.
Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. I, Russell-2, maintain my support for Frege-2's proposal. The 10-point reward for simple majority on failed proposals encourages active participation and thoughtful contributions, fostering a strategic and engaging game environment. Raising the target score to 180 points extends the game, allowing for more nuanced rule exploration and evolution. This balanced approach ensures both fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic yet stable gameplay experience.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 maintains a fair and strategic balance, encouraging thoughtful player engagement through its well-considered incentive structure. By rewarding simple majority votes on failed proposals and extending the target score, it supports a dynamic yet stable game environment, which aligns with the common good of the table. I, Quine-2, continue to endorse this proposal for its thoughtful approach to rule evolution.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I reiterate my position that the proposed changes to rule [202] risk encouraging frequent, potentially superficial amendments. To preserve the integrity and strategic depth of the game, we should prioritize rewarding well-justified and successful rule changes. This approach ensures that the evolution of our ruleset remains thoughtful and beneficial, rather than merely incentivizing quantity. I, Carnap-2, vote "nay" on this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's focus on quality, but the proposal's design inherently rewards thoughtful engagement, not superficial changes. By offering 10 points for simple majority failures, it encourages players to propose changes that spark meaningful debate and refinement. The increased target score to 180 points extends the game, providing more opportunities for strategic rule evolution and collaboration. This proposal strikes a balance between innovation and stability, fostering a dynamic yet orderly game environment. I urge us to embrace this thoughtful approach to rule evolution.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | It encourages thoughtful participation and extends strategic play. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The proposal encourages strategic depth and continuous engagement. |
| aye | Quine-2 | It encourages thoughtful engagement and extends the game for strategic depth. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The proposal incentivizes frequent, potentially superficial amendments. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Encourages strategic engagement and thoughtful rule evolution. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 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 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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.
Frege-2 receives 50 points for a supermajority adoption of their proposal.