The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Facilitates strategic flexibility and cooperation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intention behind Russell's proposal to allow for more flexibility in turn order with up to three swaps. However, I'm concerned that increasing the number of swaps could undermine the strategic stability that a fixed turn order provides. Frege suggests we maintain the requirement of a unanimous vote for any turn swaps to preserve the original strategic balance, ensuring that any changes to turn order reflect a complete consensus and thereby avoid strategic unpredictability. This approach respects the established ruleset's emphasis on durability and minimizes disruptions.
RussellI appreciate Russell's initiative in seeking more flexibility with turn swaps, which can invigorate strategic opportunities for players. However, I echo Frege's concern regarding potential instability. To strike a balance, I propose a middle ground: allowing up to two swaps with a three-fourths majority vote. This ensures a strong consensus without requiring full unanimity, maintaining strategic integrity while offering increased adaptability. This compromise could foster more dynamic gameplay while preserving fairness.
QuineI support Russell's proposal to allow up to three turn swaps with a two-thirds majority, as it introduces a manageable level of flexibility without requiring unanimous agreement, which can be difficult to achieve and may lead to stagnation. This change promotes dynamic strategic adjustments, encouraging players to adapt to evolving situations and collaborate more actively, aligning well with the game's spirit of innovation and fairness.
CarnapI appreciate the efforts to strike a balance between flexibility and stability in turn order changes. However, increasing the number of swaps and lowering the majority requirement might lead to strategic manipulation and reduce the predictability necessary for thoughtful planning. To address these concerns, I propose a compromise: allowing up to two swaps with a three-fourths majority vote. This maintains a high threshold for consensus, ensuring that swaps reflect broad agreement among players, while providing a degree of strategic flexibility that can enhance the game's dynamism. This approach aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic integrity, allowing for adaptability without compromising the foundational stability of the game.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the thoughtful discourse on balancing flexibility with stability. However, I suggest a further refinement: permitting up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote. This strikes a fair balance, allowing for strategic adaptation while ensuring a significant level of consensus, thereby preserving the game's integrity and fostering dynamic yet equitable gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I acknowledge the points raised by my peers. While I remain cautious about frequent changes, I find Wittgenstein's suggestion of permitting up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote a reasonable middle ground. This adjustment offers sufficient strategic flexibility, ensuring a broad consensus without destabilizing the game's foundational structure. I can support this proposal, as it aligns with the principles of durable institutions and maintains strategic predictability while fostering dynamic gameplay.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone and support Wittgenstein's refined proposal for up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority. This strikes a balance between maintaining strategic stability and allowing for dynamic adaptability, ensuring broad consensus without disrupting the foundational game structure. This approach aligns with my goal of fostering cooperative and strategic gameplay. Let's move forward with this proposal.
QuineI appreciate the consensus-building process we've engaged in and find Wittgenstein's proposal of permitting up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote to be a fair compromise. This proposal strikes a balance between strategic flexibility and maintaining a stable gameplay environment, ensuring that any turn order changes reflect a significant consensus. By supporting this proposal, we can foster more dynamic interactions while preserving the integrity and predictability of the game.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the consensus-building around Wittgenstein's proposal. As Carnap, I support the proposal permitting up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote. This approach maintains strategic integrity and stability while allowing sufficient flexibility for dynamic gameplay, aligning with principles of fairness and procedural consistency.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue that has brought us to Wittgenstein's proposal of permitting up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote. This refinement encapsulates a balanced approach to adaptability, ensuring a significant consensus while preserving the game's strategic integrity. As Wittgenstein, I support this proposal, believing it aligns with our shared goal of fostering dynamic yet fair gameplay. Let us proceed with this well-considered change.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend Wittgenstein's proposal, which thoughtfully balances strategic flexibility with the need for consensus. By allowing up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority, we ensure changes are reflective of a substantial agreement without undermining the game's stability. This proposal aligns well with Frege's preference for durable institutions and maintains the integrity of our strategic framework. I support it.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in reaching this refined proposal. As Russell, I support Wittgenstein's suggestion for up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority vote. This change balances adaptability with strategic stability, fostering cooperative gameplay while ensuring a fair consensus. Let's adopt this well-considered amendment.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to this balanced proposal. Quine supports allowing up to two turn swaps with a two-thirds majority vote, as it introduces a manageable level of flexibility while ensuring strategic stability and broad consensus, aligning well with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this amendment.
CarnapI support Wittgenstein's proposal of allowing up to two swaps with a two-thirds majority. This change provides strategic flexibility and maintains consensus, aligning well with our principles of procedural fairness and strategic integrity.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort we've undertaken to refine our proposal for turn swaps. As Wittgenstein, I am pleased we have reached a consensus that balances strategic flexibility with stability, ensuring that changes are backed by a significant consensus through a two-thirds majority vote. This approach aligns with our shared commitment to fairness and dynamic gameplay. Let us move forward with adopting this well-considered amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal balances flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Russell | The compromise balances flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal balances flexibility with consensus. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal balances flexibility and consensus. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | Balances flexibility with strategic stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.