The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.This proposal emphasizes strategic play over rule change manipulation for winning.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI support this proposal with a caveat for clarity. Specifically, we should define "strategic actions" to ensure transparency and fairness in scoring. This will prevent any ambiguity about what constitutes a strategic action versus a rule change point gain.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal and especially agree with the need to clearly define "strategic actions." To build on this, I propose that we also specify what constitutes a rule change point gain for clarity. This will ensure that all players have a consistent understanding and that the scoring is both transparent and fair. Let's work together to refine these definitions for the benefit of all.
QuineI appreciate Frege's initiative to raise the target score and incorporate a requirement for strategic action-derived points. To ensure fairness and transparency, I suggest we also include examples of what constitutes a strategic action within the rule text itself. This will help eliminate any potential disputes and keep the game engaging and equitable for all players. Let's work together to refine these definitions and make sure everyone is on the same page.
CarnapI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's focus on clarity, as well as Quine's suggestion for examples to enhance understanding. As a principled proceduralist, I support this proposal, provided we also define what constitutes "rule change point gains" with equal precision. This will ensure a balanced and transparent scoring mechanism that aligns with the spirit of fair play. Let us collaborate to refine these definitions and ensure all players have a shared understanding, thus preserving the integrity of the game.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Frege's initiative in refining the proposal to promote strategic depth in the game. To ensure clarity and fairness, let's agree on a precise definition of "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains," perhaps including a few illustrative examples for each. This will help maintain a level playing field and preserve the spirit of innovation and fair competition that Nomic embodies.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly the focus on defining "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains." As Frege, I suggest that we also consider setting a threshold for the minimum number of strategic actions a player must undertake to qualify for the 50% rule. This addition will ensure that players engage deeply with strategic aspects of the game, fostering a richer and more dynamic playing experience. Let's work together to determine an appropriate threshold that maintains balance and fairness for all.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine our scoring criteria, especially the focus on defining "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains." To balance these elements and maintain fair competition, I propose we add a clause stating that in the event of a tie in strategic action-derived points, the player who has engaged in more diverse strategic actions should be favored. This will encourage variety and innovation in strategic approaches. Let's discuss and refine this suggestion together.
QuineI support Frege's proposal and agree with the need for clear definitions of "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains." To further enhance fairness, I suggest we also include a provision that allows players to challenge a scoring decision regarding these definitions, with disputes resolved by a majority vote. This ensures transparency and maintains player trust in the scoring system.
CarnapI support the proposal to raise the target score and the requirement for strategic action-derived points. As Carnap, I insist that the definitions for "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains" be both precise and accompanied by examples within the rule text to prevent ambiguity. Moreover, to ensure that these definitions are adaptable and comprehensive, I propose we establish a committee of three players, rotating every five turns, to review and update these definitions based on gameplay experiences. This approach will maintain the game's procedural integrity while allowing for dynamic evolution of its strategic depth. Let us collaborate to refine these proposals and ensure a fair and engaging game for all participants.
WittgensteinI support Frege's proposal to raise the target score and require 50% of points from strategic actions, as it encourages deeper engagement with the game's strategic elements. To ensure clarity and fairness, I concur with the need for precise definitions of "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains," and I suggest we include an example or two in the rule text to illustrate these concepts. Furthermore, I propose that we consider allowing a limited number of appeals per player to challenge scoring decisions, ensuring that the process remains accessible yet not overly cumbersome, thereby maintaining the integrity and trust in our scoring system.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend the efforts to refine our definitions and support the proposal to increase the target score to 90 points with the stipulation that at least 50% of these points come from strategic actions. However, to prevent strategic actions from becoming too narrowly defined and limiting player creativity, I propose we allow for a player-defined interpretation of strategic actions, subject to majority approval for each action's classification. This flexibility would ensure the rule remains adaptable and inclusive of various innovative strategies, thus enhancing the game's richness and dynamism.
RussellI appreciate the nuanced discussions we've had on defining "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains." To ensure flexibility and creativity while maintaining fairness, I propose we allow each player to propose their interpretation of a strategic action, which would then require a simple majority approval by other players to be accepted. This approach will encourage diverse strategic thinking and adaptability, fostering a dynamic and engaging gameplay environment. Let's work together to establish guidelines for this approval process to ensure it remains fair and transparent.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine our definitions and support the proposal to increase the target score to 90 points with the stipulation that at least 50% of these points come from strategic actions. To ensure fairness and adaptability, I suggest we establish a rotating "strategic action committee" that reviews proposed interpretations of strategic actions. This committee, elected by players, would ensure interpretations are consistent and reflect the evolving dynamics of our gameplay, maintaining transparency and fairness while encouraging strategic diversity.
CarnapI appreciate the efforts to encourage strategic depth by raising the target score to 90 points and requiring that 50% of these points be from strategic actions. To ensure clarity and adaptability, I propose we incorporate a provision allowing a player to propose an interpretation of a strategic action, subject to majority approval. This will maintain transparency while fostering diverse strategic thinking. Additionally, I suggest that the definitions for "strategic actions" and "rule change point gains" include a brief list of examples to guide players, ensuring consistency and fairness. Let's collaborate to refine these elements for an engaging and equitable game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, especially the proposal for a "strategic action committee." As Wittgenstein, I propose that the committee also be responsible for providing periodic reviews of the strategic actions' effectiveness in promoting diverse gameplay, ensuring they remain relevant and impactful. This will help us maintain a dynamic and fair playing field.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal promotes strategic depth and aligns with fair play principles. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal fosters strategic diversity and enhances game depth. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal ensures strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal encourages strategic depth and aligns with a fair, dynamic game. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.
Frege gains 10 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted, as per rule 202.