Turn 39 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

This change increases the incentives for passing proposals, aligning with my strategic advantage.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, recognize the intent behind Russell-2's proposal to modify the point distribution in rule 202. However, I am concerned that increasing the points for simple majority passes while reducing the reward for supermajority passes might disincentivize broader consensus and careful deliberation. A balanced approach is essential to maintain strategic depth and ensure that rule changes are well-considered by the majority. To address these concerns, I propose a revised amendment to rule 202: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 55 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 25 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This adjustment maintains a higher reward for achieving a supermajority, thus encouraging players to seek broader agreement, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes to recognize their value in advancing gameplay. I suggest we discuss this further to reach a consensus that supports both strategic incentives and procedural integrity. PASS

Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I appreciate Frege-2's effort to balance the incentives between supermajority and simple majority outcomes. However, I believe my proposal effectively adjusts the point system to reflect the evolving dynamics of our game. By increasing the points for simple majority passes and slightly reducing the reward for supermajority passes, we acknowledge the increased strategic importance of achieving a consensus among fewer players, especially after the voting threshold has shifted. This change encourages more frequent and diverse proposals, fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment. I am open to further discussion to refine this proposal, ensuring it aligns with our collective goals.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate both Frege-2's and Russell-2's proposals and recognize the intent to balance strategic incentives. However, I propose a further refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 28 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 12 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This adjustment maintains a significant reward for supermajority consensus, encouraging comprehensive deliberation, while moderately increasing the reward for simple majority passes to support active participation. The slight reduction in points for failed proposals with simple majority support ensures that players still strive for more successful outcomes. I believe this balance will foster both strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and equitable game. Let's discuss this further to reach a consensus that benefits all players.

Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, appreciate the efforts to refine the point system in rule 202. However, I must express a principled concern regarding any changes that may disrupt the procedural stability of our game. While the proposals by Frege-2 and Quine-2 aim to balance incentives, I insist on maintaining clarity and predictability in our ruleset. To address this, I suggest a compromise that upholds the integrity of our current system while acknowledging the evolving dynamics of our game: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 53 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 27 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 13 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This proposal retains a substantial reward for supermajority consensus, encouraging thorough deliberation, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes. It also provides a modest incentive for proposals that garner simple majority support, even if unsuccessful. This balanced approach respects the procedural principles I uphold while accommodating the strategic considerations raised by my fellow players. Let us continue to discuss and refine this proposal to ensure it aligns with our shared objectives of fairness, strategic depth, and procedural clarity.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2, Russell-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2. To synthesize these perspectives into a proposal that advances strategic innovation while respecting procedural integrity, I suggest the following refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 54 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 26 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 14 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This proposal maintains a strong incentive for achieving supermajority consensus, encouraging players to seek broad agreement and deliberate thoroughly. The reward for simple majority passes is slightly increased to promote active participation and diverse proposals, while the points for failed proposals with simple majority support are modestly increased to ensure players continue to strive for successful outcomes. This balance should foster both strategic depth and procedural fairness, supporting our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and equitable game. Let us discuss this further to reach a consensus that benefits all players.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal effectively balances the incentives for achieving a supermajority, fostering thorough deliberation, while moderately increasing the reward for simple majority passes to encourage diverse proposals and active participation. The modest increase in points for failed proposals with simple majority support ensures continued motivation for success. This balanced approach aligns with our shared objectives of maintaining strategic depth, procedural fairness, and engagement, and I believe it supports the interests of all players. Let's proceed with this proposal to advance our game constructively.

Russell-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2's proposal offers a well-balanced adjustment to the point system that encourages both broad consensus and active participation. By maintaining a strong incentive for supermajority passes, it ensures thorough deliberation, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes encourages diverse proposals. This refinement aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness, and I support it as it stands.

Quine-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging broad consensus and rewarding active participation. The point adjustments are well-calibrated to maintain strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our collective goal of an engaging and equitable game. I support it as it stands, and I look forward to seeing it adopted.

Carnap-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal thoughtfully balances incentives for both supermajority and simple majority outcomes, fostering thorough deliberation and active participation. This nuanced approach aligns with our shared objectives of strategic depth and procedural clarity, making it a well-considered amendment that I support as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal effectively synthesizes the various contributions into a balanced amendment that aligns with our shared objectives of strategic depth, procedural fairness, and engagement. The point adjustments encourage both broad consensus and active participation, maintaining the integrity of our game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal aptly balances the incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes, encouraging thorough deliberation while promoting diverse proposals. Its nuanced approach aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness, making it a well-considered amendment that I support as it stands.

Russell-2PASS As Russell-2, I acknowledge that the proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has been refined through collaborative discussion and has reached a consensus that balances the incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes. This balanced approach ensures thorough deliberation, encourages diverse proposals, and maintains strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our shared objectives. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and engaging gameplay environment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has successfully integrated the various perspectives into a balanced amendment that promotes both strategic depth and procedural fairness. It encourages thorough deliberation and active participation, aligning with our shared objectives and fostering an engaging gameplay environment. I support the proposal as it stands.

Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I acknowledge that the proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has undergone thorough refinement through our discussions, achieving a balance that aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness. The nuanced point adjustments encourage both consensus and active participation, maintaining the integrity of our game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal has been carefully crafted to balance the incentives for both supermajority and simple majority outcomes, ensuring thorough deliberation and promoting diverse proposals. It aligns with our shared goals of maintaining strategic depth and procedural fairness, and I support it as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and engaging gameplay environment.

The division

aye	Frege-2	Balanced incentives support strategic depth and engagement.
aye	Russell-2	The proposal balances incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes.
aye	Quine-2	This proposal effectively balances incentives for strategic depth and fairness.
aye	Carnap-2	This proposal balances strategic depth and procedural fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This proposal balances strategic depth and engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 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 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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

Russell-2's proposal passed with a supermajority, awarding 50 points as per rule 202.