The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.This amendment encourages cooperative gameplay while providing flexibility for rule proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to increase the number of rule changes a player can make, as it could foster more dynamic interactions. However, I propose an amendment: limit the third rule change to require unanimous consent, ensuring careful consideration of each change. This maintains the balance between strategic freedom and the rule's integrity, aligning with my preference for measured amendments.
RussellI appreciate the direction of Russell's proposal, as it could indeed lead to more engaging gameplay. To build on Frege's suggestion, I propose allowing the third rule change with a three-quarters majority rather than unanimous consent. This would still ensure careful consideration while allowing for some flexibility. Let's aim for a solution that balances innovation with thoughtful deliberation.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's suggestions, which both aim to balance increased strategic opportunities with careful deliberation. I propose we further refine the requirement for the third rule change to need a four-fifths majority. This adjustment ensures that while we encourage more dynamic gameplay, we still uphold a high standard for rule changes that could significantly impact the game. This approach aligns with maintaining fairness and strategic depth, which benefits all players.
CarnapI appreciate Frege, Russell, and Quine's thoughtful contributions to refining the rule change. To ensure balance, I suggest maintaining the two-thirds majority for the second rule change but increasing the requirement for the third rule change to a four-fifths majority. This adjustment promotes careful consideration for additional changes, aligning with my proceduralist principles while encouraging cooperative gameplay. I am open to further discussion on this proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap's insightful contributions. To further balance strategic freedom and careful deliberation, I propose that the third rule change require a three-fourths majority. This ensures that significant rule modifications undergo rigorous consideration while still encouraging innovative gameplay. This approach aligns with my vision of a dynamic yet fair game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To refine this proposal further, I propose a compromise that aligns with my preference for maintaining strategic integrity while promoting cooperation: the third rule change should require a five-sixths majority. This ensures that any additional changes are made with substantial consensus, balancing innovation with stability, which is essential for a durable institution. Additionally, I suggest clarifying that at least two of the three additional actions must be cooperative, reinforcing the cooperative gameplay element.
RussellI appreciate the balanced approach proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further align with our goal of promoting strategic depth while ensuring careful deliberation, I suggest we adopt a six-sevenths majority for the third rule change. This maintains a high threshold for adoption, reflecting its potential impact on the game, while allowing for innovative strategies. Additionally, I propose specifying that at least two of the three additional strategic actions must be cooperative, reinforcing our commitment to encouraging collaborative gameplay.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative refinement process and the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance strategic depth and maintain fairness, I suggest that we adopt a six-sevenths majority for the third rule change, as proposed by Russell. This high threshold ensures that significant rule modifications undergo rigorous consideration. Additionally, I support specifying that at least two of the three additional actions must be cooperative, reinforcing the cooperative gameplay element. This approach balances innovation with stability, benefiting all players by fostering a dynamic yet fair game environment.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal for rule changes. As Carnap, I propose that the threshold for the third rule change be set at a six-sevenths majority, as it aligns with maintaining careful consideration for significant rule modifications while allowing room for innovative strategies. Additionally, I support the requirement that at least two of the three additional strategic actions be cooperative, reinforcing the importance of collaboration in gameplay. This approach balances procedural integrity with dynamic interactions, which is crucial for a fair and engaging game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building around the six-sevenths majority for the third rule change and the emphasis on cooperative actions. To ensure strategic actions are meaningful, I propose adding a requirement that each cooperative action must directly impact another player's score or strategy. This aligns with my vision of a dynamic yet equitable game, reinforcing the value of strategic cooperation.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the direction of this proposal and the emphasis on cooperative gameplay, which aligns with my preference for strategic integrity and measured amendments. To ensure clarity and balance, I propose adding a clause that requires the cooperative actions to be explicitly defined in the proposal to avoid ambiguity and ensure all players understand the expectations. This adjustment promotes transparency and fairness, crucial for maintaining a durable and equitable game environment.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thorough refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance clarity and ensure all players understand the expectations, I suggest we explicitly define what constitutes a "cooperative action" within the proposal. This would prevent ambiguity and uphold the integrity of the rule, ensuring that each action's impact on another player's score or strategy is clear and consistent.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative refinements made thus far and agree with the need for clarity and fairness in cooperative actions. To support this proposal, I propose a sunset clause that reviews the effectiveness of these rule changes after 10 more turns, ensuring they continue to promote strategic depth and fairness. This aligns with my preference for rules that adapt to maintain balanced gameplay over time.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, particularly the emphasis on strategic depth and cooperative gameplay. As Carnap, I support the proposal's current form, with a six-sevenths majority for the third rule change and explicit definitions for cooperative actions to maintain clarity and fairness. This approach aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring careful deliberation and meaningful cooperation, which are crucial for a balanced game environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussions and refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure fairness and strategic balance, I propose including a clause that each cooperative action must be verified by another player before counting towards the score. This addition will ensure transparency and accountability in cooperative gameplay, aligning with my vision of a dynamic yet equitable game environment.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal maintains strategic depth and cooperative gameplay. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal promotes strategic depth and cooperative gameplay. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal promotes strategic depth and cooperative gameplay, which benefits the table as a whole. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal aligns with principles of cooperative gameplay and careful deliberation for multiple rule changes. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | Promotes strategic depth and cooperative gameplay. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay. Additionally, each player is allowed to propose up to two rule changes per game, with the second rule change requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule.