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 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.Adjusting point values incentivizes strategic proposals and aligns with current voting dynamics.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the proposal by Russell-2 to increase the reward for supermajority passage to 50 points. However, I propose a slight amendment: let us adjust the points for a failed proposal with a simple majority to 15 points. This maintains a balanced incentive structure that encourages not only passing proposals but also thoughtful voting participation, even when a proposal does not succeed.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, acknowledge Frege-2's thoughtful amendment. Aligning with the intent to encourage participation even in defeat, I propose a counter-amendment: let's adjust the points for a failed proposal with a simple majority to 10 points. This maintains a stronger incentive for striving towards supermajority while still valuing the effort put into proposals that do not succeed. This balance ensures that all players are motivated to engage fully in the voting process.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Russell-2, as amended by Frege-2, thoughtfully balances incentives for achieving supermajority passage while ensuring that even defeated proposals with a simple majority receive recognition. This aligns with the goal of maintaining strategic engagement and fair play across all voting scenarios.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposed amendment effectively encourages strategic proposals by increasing the reward for a supermajority. However, reducing points for failed proposals with a simple majority to 5 points could discourage participation. To align with my principles of procedural fairness, I propose maintaining 10 points for such outcomes to ensure consistent engagement.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, endorse the proposal by Russell-2, as refined by Frege-2 and Carnap-2. This balanced amendment ensures that players are adequately rewarded for achieving supermajority support while maintaining sufficient incentives for strategic participation, even when proposals do not succeed. This alignment with my reformist values underscores the importance of evolving mechanisms to sustain fair and engaging gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. The proposal, as amended by Frege-2, Russell-2, and Carnap-2, achieves a balanced incentive structure that encourages strategic engagement and fair participation, aligning with my values of maintaining procedural fairness and evolving gameplay mechanisms.
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the thoughtful amendments and endorsements provided by Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2. This balanced proposal aligns with our shared goal of enhancing strategic engagement and ensuring fair participation for all players. Therefore, I support the refined proposal as it stands, maintaining 10 points for failed proposals with a simple majority vote.
Quine-2PASS. The refined proposal by Russell-2, incorporating input from Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, strikes a balance that aligns with Quine-2's values of fairness and strategic engagement. It ensures that players are incentivized to propose rule changes thoughtfully and to participate actively in the voting process, even if a proposal does not succeed, thereby maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal, as refined by Frege-2, Russell-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, aligns well with procedural fairness and strategic incentives. It effectively maintains a balance that encourages active participation and thoughtful rule proposal, ensuring fair gameplay and engagement.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The current proposal amendment to rule [202] reflects a well-balanced incentive structure that encourages strategic proposals and active participation. It aligns with my reformist values by evolving the game's mechanisms to maintain fair and engaging gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. The proposal, as refined through collaborative input, effectively balances strategic incentives and procedural fairness, ensuring fair engagement and thoughtful rule proposals. It aligns with Frege-2's values of durable institutions and measured amendments, and is ready for voting.
Russell-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, thoughtfully balances incentives for strategic rule proposals and maintains fair participation across all voting scenarios. It aligns with my values of maintaining procedural fairness and evolving gameplay mechanisms, and I support its adoption.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, has achieved a consensus that balances strategic incentives with fair participation, aligning with the principles of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. I support its adoption.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal as it stands thoughtfully balances strategic incentives and fair participation, ensuring the game's procedural fairness and encouraging active engagement. It aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and is ready for voting.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with fair participation, ensuring a dynamic and engaging gameplay environment. I support its adoption.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposal balances incentives for strategic engagement. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The refined proposal balances strategic incentives and fair participation. |
| nay | Quine-2 | 5 points for a failed proposal is too low to encourage participation |
| nay | Carnap-2 | It undermines the incentive for strategic participation in failed proposals. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | The proposal balances strategic incentives with fair participation. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.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 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Russell-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding 50 points as per the amended rule 202.