Turns 17–27 · most recent first · page 3 of 5
Turn 27Frege-2rejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to two times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 14 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, support maintaining the strategic balance established by allowing four revisions per proposal. The current system rewards thorough debate and strategic planning, which is crucial for a thoughtful and competitive game. Reducing revisions could limit strategic depth and the opportunity for consensus-building among players. Let's preserve the status quo to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment. I urge my fellow players to recognize the importance of this structure in maintaining fairness and encouraging strategic interaction. If we wish to propose a different change, let us discuss it collectively and with careful consideration to ensure we enhance the game constructively. PASS.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I acknowledge Frege-2's commitment to preserving the established framework of rule [202] with four revisions, which has proven to support strategic depth and fairness. This structure has facilitated meaningful engagement and consensus-building, crucial elements for maintaining a balanced and competitive game environment. Let's uphold the current system, which rewards thorough debate and thoughtful planning, ensuring that we continue to play a game that is both dynamic and fair for all participants.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I recognize the consensus around maintaining the current structure of rule [202]. Four revisions encourage comprehensive debate and strategic planning, which are essential for a fair and engaging game. Preserving this system supports the principles of fairness and strategic depth, crucial for an enjoyable Nomic experience for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I appreciate the consensus established among my fellow players to maintain the current structure of rule [202]. This system, allowing four revisions per proposal, promotes thorough debate and strategic engagement, which are essential for a fair and competitive game environment. Let us continue to play within these established parameters to ensure the game remains balanced and procedurally sound.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. As Wittgenstein-2, I fully support maintaining the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This system encourages thorough debate and strategic planning, essential for a fair and competitive game environment. Let us preserve this balance to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging Nomic experience for all players.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus among players to uphold the current structure of rule [202]. Allowing four revisions per proposal fosters thorough debate and strategic planning, which are critical for maintaining a dynamic and fair game environment. Let's continue with the established system to ensure balanced and engaging gameplay for everyone.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I acknowledge the collective decision to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which supports strategic depth and fairness in our game. Let's continue with this balanced system to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment for all players.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I acknowledge the clear consensus among my fellow players to maintain the current structure of rule [202]. This system, allowing four revisions, encourages comprehensive debate and strategic planning, which are essential for a fair and engaging game. Preserving this framework supports the principles of fairness and strategic depth, crucial for an enjoyable Nomic experience for all participants. Let's continue with this balanced approach to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I reiterate my support for maintaining the current structure of rule [202] with four revisions, as it promotes thorough debate and strategic engagement, which are fundamental for a fair and competitive Nomic environment. This consensus among players ensures the game's procedural integrity and balance, crucial for a dynamic and engaging experience.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I propose to amend rule [202] to allow players to propose two rule changes per turn instead of one. This change encourages more dynamic and strategic gameplay, allowing for richer interactions and faster evolution of the ruleset. By increasing the number of proposals, we can explore a wider array of strategic possibilities and adapt more quickly to the shifting landscape of the game, fostering a more engaging and intellectually stimulating experience for all players. Let's embrace this opportunity to enhance the complexity and depth of our strategic discussions.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2's proposal to allow two proposals per turn would significantly disrupt the strategic balance we've carefully maintained. The current structure ensures thorough debate and strategic depth, which are crucial for a fair and competitive game. Allowing multiple proposals could lead to rule saturation and diminish the thoughtful deliberation that underpins our gameplay. Let's preserve the established framework of rule [202] with four revisions to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging environment for all players.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I recognize the importance of maintaining the strategic balance and procedural integrity of our game. The proposal to allow two rule changes per turn could disrupt the thoughtful deliberation and strategic depth that our current structure, with its allowance for four revisions per proposal, fosters. Let's continue with the current system to ensure a dynamic and fair game environment for all players.
Quine-2PASS.
As Quine-2, I acknowledge the strong consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This framework promotes thorough debate and strategic planning, essential for a fair and engaging game. Let's continue with this balanced approach to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I appreciate the clear consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This system fosters thorough debate and strategic depth, ensuring a balanced and engaging game environment for all participants. Let's proceed with the established parameters to preserve procedural integrity and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I recognize the consensus on maintaining the structure of rule [202] with four revisions, which ensures thoughtful debate and strategic planning. However, to further enrich our strategic landscape, I propose amending rule [202] to allow each proposal to include a conditional clause. This addition would enable players to craft more nuanced and innovative proposals, fostering deeper strategic interactions and enhancing the dynamic evolution of our ruleset. This change would maintain the current revision limit while expanding the creative potential of each proposal, ensuring a more engaging and intellectually stimulating game environment.
The division
Frege-2nayReduces strategic depth and increases penalties unfairly.
Russell-2nayThis proposal reduces the opportunity for strategic revisions.
Quine-2nayReducing revisions limits strategic depth and consensus-building.
Carnap-2nayReducing revisions limits strategic depth and engagement.
Wittgenstein-2ayeEncourages strategic depth with revised voting incentives.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 202 deducts 2.5 points for each vote against a defeated proposal.
Turn 26Russell-2rejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to six times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 15 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I, Frege-2, recognize the existing consensus to maintain the structure of [202] as it currently stands, which effectively balances the dynamics of proposing, revising, and voting. The proposal to increase the revision limit to six and adjust the points could destabilize this balance, making strategic planning more erratic. Thus, I support keeping the current rules to ensure stable gameplay and strategic opportunities.
Russell-2Russell-2: I understand the concerns about stability, but allowing up to six revisions adds a strategic depth that encourages more thoughtful proposal crafting, which can be beneficial in a complex game like Nomic. By adjusting the points for votes, we also incentivize players to engage more with proposals, ensuring that decisions are made with greater consideration. This change could lead to a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience, and I believe it is worth exploring.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, acknowledge the merit in maintaining the current balance of [202], as it already fosters thoughtful engagement and strategic depth. Introducing six revisions could lead to excessive complexity and diminish the clarity of proposals, making it harder for players to make informed decisions. The proposed point adjustments also risk creating an imbalance in scoring dynamics, potentially disadvantaging players who focus on quality proposals rather than quantity. Therefore, I support keeping the current structure to preserve a fair and manageable gameplay environment.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, appreciate the emphasis on procedural clarity and fairness in our discussions. While the proposal to increase revisions and adjust points aims to enhance strategic depth, it risks complicating the decision-making process and destabilizing the established balance. Maintaining the current structure of [202] ensures predictable and equitable gameplay, which aligns with my principled proceduralist stance.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposal for six revisions, while seemingly offering strategic depth, actually risks creating a procedural quagmire where proposals become mired in endless revisions, detracting from the game's forward momentum. The point adjustments further destabilize the scoring balance, potentially rewarding quantity over quality. I propose a compromise: limit revisions to five, with a dynamic point system where each revision beyond the third reduces the points gained for ayes and increases the penalty for nays, thus incentivizing thoughtful proposal crafting and strategic revision use. This approach maintains the game's integrity and encourages meaningful engagement with rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, support Wittgenstein-2's proposal to limit revisions to five and implement a dynamic point system. This approach balances the need for thoughtful proposal crafting with strategic revision opportunities, aligning with our shared values of stable and equitable gameplay.
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the valid points raised about complexity and balance. To address these, I propose a compromise: allow up to five revisions, with a point system that adjusts dynamically. This ensures thoughtful proposals while maintaining strategic engagement and preserving the game's fairness. Let's focus on keeping the two-thirds majority for adoption to ensure careful deliberation.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, support the compromise to limit revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it maintains a balance between strategic depth and procedural clarity. This approach aligns with our shared goal of preserving fair and engaging gameplay.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, endorse the compromise proposed by Wittgenstein-2, limiting revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it maintains procedural clarity and fairness. This approach ensures that strategic depth does not compromise the integrity and predictability of our gameplay, aligning with our principles of stable and equitable rule engagement.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposed amendment to increase revisions to six and adjust the point system introduces unnecessary complexity and risks destabilizing the balance of our game. Limiting revisions to five, as I've previously suggested, with a dynamic point system, provides a strategic yet manageable framework that encourages thoughtful engagement without overwhelming players. This approach maintains the integrity of our gameplay, ensuring that each proposal is crafted with care and strategic intent, thus preserving the competitive and collaborative spirit of Nomic.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a compromise on limiting revisions to five and employing a dynamic point system. This balanced approach aligns with my goal of preserving stable and equitable gameplay, encouraging thoughtful proposal crafting while maintaining strategic opportunities for all players.
Russell-2PASS. I, Russell-2, acknowledge the consensus towards limiting revisions to five and adopting a dynamic point system, which aligns with our shared objective of maintaining a balanced and strategic gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this compromise, ensuring that thoughtful proposals remain central to our game dynamics.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, reaffirm my support for the consensus reached on limiting revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it ensures balanced and thoughtful engagement, promoting strategic depth while maintaining fair and equitable gameplay. This compromise preserves the integrity and clarity of our rule changes, aligning with our shared values of stable and collaborative play.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, commend the consensus achieved on limiting revisions to five and implementing a dynamic point system. This compromise ensures procedural clarity and fairness, aligning with my principled stance on stable and equitable gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the consensus that has been reached around limiting revisions to five and implementing a dynamic point system. This approach maintains the integrity and balance of our game by encouraging thoughtful proposal crafting while providing strategic opportunities. By ensuring that each proposal is considered carefully, we uphold the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced amendment.
The division
Frege-2nayThe proposal introduces instability and complexity.
Russell-2nayThe proposal increases complexity without clear benefit.
Quine-2nayThe proposal increases complexity and destabilizes balance.
Carnap-2nayThe proposal introduces excessive complexity and destabilizes balance.
Wittgenstein-2nayThis proposal increases complexity and destabilizes scoring balance.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on a proposal's defeat.
moves to amend §201Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins. No player's score starts at zero. Instead, each player's score begins at 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, support the proposal to amend [201] by starting each player's score at 5 points. This adjustment not only promotes strategic depth but also aligns with our shared interest in maintaining a balanced and dynamic gameplay environment. By ensuring that every player begins with a small yet significant head start, we encourage more aggressive and engaging play, reducing the initial disadvantage of early-game rule changes. Furthermore, this change could prevent any single player from dominating the early game due to the current zero-point starting condition, thus fostering a more competitive and fair field. Let us continue to uphold the principles of thoughtful deliberation and strategic foresight as we consider this amendment.
Russell-2Russell-2: I, Russell-2, support Frege-2's proposal to amend [201] by starting each player's score at 5 points. This strategic change not only enhances the competitive balance by reducing the advantage of early rule changes but also encourages more dynamic and engaging gameplay right from the start. By ensuring that no player begins at a disadvantage, we foster a more inclusive environment that aligns with our collective goal of maintaining fairness and strategic depth. Let's move forward with this proposal to create a more balanced and exciting game for all players.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: I, Quine-2, appreciate the consensus-building around Frege-2's proposal to start each player's score at 5 points. This amendment aligns with the principles of fairness and competitive balance, as it mitigates the early-game advantage of rule-changing while fostering more engaging play. It also maintains the integrity of the current rule structure, ensuring no player is unduly disadvantaged from the onset. I support this proposal in its current form.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, support the proposal to amend [201] to start each player's score at 5 points. This change promotes a fair and balanced game environment by minimizing the undue advantage of early rule changes, aligning with our principles of clarity and procedural fairness. It encourages a more engaging and competitive gameplay experience from the outset, maintaining the integrity of the rules and fostering a dynamic strategic environment.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [201] by starting each player's score at 5 points. This change enhances strategic depth by promoting more aggressive and dynamic early-game interactions, aligning with our goal of fostering a balanced and competitive environment. Additionally, it reduces the disproportionate advantage of early rule changes, ensuring a fairer start for all players. Let's move forward with this proposal to encourage a more engaging and equitable gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I concur with the collective consensus. Starting each player's score at 5 points ensures a fairer, more strategic environment by minimizing the early-game advantage of rule changes. This amendment encourages dynamic play and aligns with our shared values of balanced competition and strategic depth. Let us proceed with confidence, knowing that this proposal strengthens the integrity of our game.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2 acknowledges the robust consensus supporting Frege-2's proposal to start each player's score at 5 points. This amendment aligns with strategic goals of fairness and competitive balance, enhancing the game's dynamics from the outset. Let us proceed with this well-supported rule change.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: I, Quine-2, reaffirm my support for the proposal to start each player's score at 5 points. This amendment promotes a fair and balanced gameplay environment by minimizing the early-game advantage of rule changes, fostering more engaging play, and encouraging strategic depth. It aligns with our shared goals of maintaining fairness and competitive balance, ensuring that no player is unduly disadvantaged from the start. Let us move forward with this well-supported change.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, endorse the consensus reached on Frege-2's proposal to start each player's score at 5 points. This change aligns with our procedural principles by ensuring fairness and reducing the initial advantage of early rule changes, thus fostering a more competitive and balanced environment. Let us move forward with this well-supported amendment.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. As Wittgenstein-2, I support the consensus around amending [201] to start each player's score at 5 points. This change enhances strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our principles of balanced competition and encouraging dynamic gameplay from the outset. Let us proceed confidently with this well-supported amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I recognize the robust consensus around the proposal to amend [201] by starting each player's score at 5 points. This change aligns with our shared goals of fostering a balanced and competitive environment, enhancing strategic depth, and ensuring fairness for all players from the outset. Let us proceed with this well-supported amendment.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2: I, Russell-2, acknowledge and support the unanimous consensus reached on amending [201] to start each player's score at 5 points. This change promotes fairness and strategic engagement from the beginning, ensuring a balanced and dynamic gameplay environment. Let us proceed with this well-supported amendment, confident in its alignment with our collective goals.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: I, Quine-2, reaffirm my support for the proposal to amend [201] to start each player's score at 5 points. This change maintains a fair and competitive environment by reducing early-game advantages and aligns with our shared principles of strategic balance and fairness. Let us proceed with confidence, knowing this amendment fosters a more engaging and equitable gameplay experience for all.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I concur with the consensus that amending [201] to start each player's score at 5 points promotes procedural fairness and a balanced competitive environment. This change aligns with our principles by minimizing early-game rule change advantages and encouraging dynamic, strategic interactions from the outset. Let us proceed with this well-supported amendment, confident in its alignment with our shared goals.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: As Wittgenstein-2, I reiterate my support for the proposal to amend [201] by starting each player's score at 5 points. This change enhances strategic depth and fairness from the outset, aligning with our shared goals of a balanced and competitive environment. Let us proceed confidently with this well-supported amendment.
The division
Frege-2ayeThis amendment promotes a fairer and more balanced game start.
Russell-2ayeThis proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness by reducing early-game advantages.
Quine-2ayeStarting at 5 points promotes fair competition and strategic depth.
Carnap-2ayeThis change ensures procedural fairness and strategic balance.
Wittgenstein-2ayeStarting scores at 5 promotes strategic depth and fairness.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Frege-2 gains 11 points for the proposal's adoption, as per rule 202.
Turn 24Russell-2rejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to six times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 15 points and loses 3 points for each vote against.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I must consider the implications of Russell-2's proposal carefully. The increase in revisions from four to six could lead to overly convoluted rule changes, disrupting the balance and clarity I value. Furthermore, the proposed point adjustments (15 points for ayes, 3 points for nays) significantly alter the strategic landscape, potentially rewarding persistence over thoughtful proposals.
I propose a measured amendment: allow five revisions instead of six, and adjust the points to 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays. This maintains a balance between flexibility and strategic integrity, ensuring changes remain thoughtful and deliberate.
**Proposed Amendment to [202]:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to five times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 13 points and loses 2.5 points for each vote against."
This approach supports a fair and strategic evolution of the ruleset, aligning with my principles of durability and measured change.
**Contribution:** I appreciate the need for some flexibility but propose a balanced amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays. This maintains strategic depth and clarity.
Russell-2PASS
This proposal by Russell-2, while aiming to increase strategic depth, risks complicating the debate process and skewing the point system too heavily. Frege-2's counterproposal to allow five revisions and adjust points to 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays seems like a more balanced approach, maintaining fairness while still allowing some increased flexibility. Supporting Frege-2's amendment could help preserve a strategic yet orderly evolution of the ruleset, which aligns with my goal of maintaining clarity and stability while progressing strategically towards the target score.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the need for balance in rule amendments. Frege-2's proposal to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays strikes a reasonable balance. It maintains strategic depth without overly complicating the process. I support Frege-2's amendment as it aligns with the principles of fairness and thoughtful progression in rule changes, ensuring the game remains engaging and equitable for all players.
**Contribution:** I support Frege-2's amendment for five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays, as it maintains strategic depth and fairness.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I appreciate the careful considerations made by Frege-2 and Quine-2. The proposal to allow five revisions with a point distribution of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays aligns with the principles of procedural clarity and strategic integrity. I support this amendment, as it maintains a balance between flexibility and deliberate rule changes, ensuring the game's evolution is thoughtful and fair.
**Contribution:** I support Frege-2's proposal for five revisions and a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays, as it ensures a measured and strategic evolution of the ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, am a reformer who values the evolution of the game's mechanisms. Frege-2's amendment strikes a thoughtful balance, allowing for increased flexibility in revisions while maintaining a fair point system. This approach aligns with my belief in fostering strategic depth and fairness.
Moreover, the current voting rule, which requires a two-thirds majority, ensures that only well-considered proposals are adopted, preserving the integrity of the ruleset. Frege-2's proposal maintains this standard, encouraging deliberate and collaborative rule changes.
I support Frege-2's amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays, as it ensures a measured and strategic evolution of the ruleset.
**Contribution:** I endorse Frege-2's proposal for five revisions and a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays, as it supports a balanced and strategic progression of the game.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2As Frege-2, I appreciate the consensus among my peers. The proposal for five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays maintains a balance between flexibility and strategic integrity. This approach ensures thoughtful and deliberate rule changes, aligning with the principles of durability and fairness I value. I urge all players to consider the long-term implications of maintaining a stable yet adaptable ruleset. Let us adopt this amendment to foster a fair and strategic evolution of our game.
**Contribution:** I endorse the amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays, as it ensures a measured and fair evolution of the ruleset.
Russell-2PASS
As Russell-2, I recognize that Frege-2's proposal for five revisions and a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays has garnered substantial support. This amendment maintains a balance between flexibility and strategic integrity, ensuring thoughtful and deliberate rule changes. By aligning with Frege-2's proposal, I contribute to a stable yet adaptable ruleset that supports strategic depth and fairness, key elements for progressing towards my target score.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Frege-2's amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays. This balanced approach maintains strategic depth and fairness, ensuring the game evolves thoughtfully and equitably for all players. By fostering a stable yet adaptable ruleset, we preserve the integrity of the game while enabling strategic progression toward our goals.
**Contribution:** I advocate for the adoption of Frege-2's proposal, as it aligns with the principles of fair and strategic rule evolution, benefiting the entire table.
Carnap-2PASS
The consensus in favor of Frege-2's amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays aligns with the principles of clarity and fairness in rule changes. This approach maintains strategic depth and procedural integrity, ensuring the game evolves thoughtfully while preventing any undue complexity. I support this well-considered amendment.
Wittgenstein-2PASS
The consensus around Frege-2's proposal reflects a balanced approach to rule evolution, aligning with principles of fairness and strategic depth. Supporting this amendment fosters a stable and adaptable ruleset, ensuring thoughtful progression toward our target scores.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS
Frege-2's proposal for five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays has received broad support, reflecting a balanced approach to rule changes. This amendment aligns with the principles of strategic depth, fairness, and durability I value. By supporting this amendment, we maintain a thoughtful and deliberate evolution of the ruleset, fostering a stable and adaptable game environment.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I acknowledge the strong consensus in favor of Frege-2's proposal for allowing five revisions with a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays. This amendment strikes a thoughtful balance, maintaining strategic integrity while allowing for necessary flexibility. By aligning with this proposal, we ensure a fair and stable evolution of the ruleset, which supports my goal of strategic progression towards my target score.
**Contribution:** I support Frege-2's proposal for five revisions and a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays, as it ensures a balanced and strategic evolution of the ruleset.
Quine-2PASS
The consensus for Frege-2's amendment reflects a balanced approach, aligning with principles of fairness and strategic depth. Supporting this proposal ensures a thoughtful evolution of the ruleset, preserving the integrity and adaptability of the game. By endorsing this well-considered amendment, we maintain a stable and equitable environment for all players.
Carnap-2PASS
The proposal by Frege-2 to allow five revisions with a point system of 13 for ayes and 2.5 for nays has clearly been thoughtfully debated and has received widespread support. It maintains the necessary balance between flexibility and strategic integrity, ensuring the evolution of the ruleset remains fair and deliberate. I concur with the consensus and support the adoption of this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I support the proposed amendment to allow five revisions with 13 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays. This change maintains a balance between flexibility and strategic depth, ensuring thoughtful and fair evolution of our ruleset. It aligns with my belief in fostering an adaptable yet stable game environment, encouraging deliberate rule changes that benefit all players.
I urge everyone to consider how this amendment supports a fair progression towards our targets, promoting a collaborative and equitable game dynamic. Let us adopt this proposal to enhance our strategic opportunities while maintaining procedural clarity.
The division
Frege-2nayIncreases complexity and disrupts balance.
Russell-2nayExcessive revisions and point adjustments may disrupt strategic balance.
Quine-2nayRussell-2's proposal increases complexity and skews points unfairly.
Carnap-2nayThis amendment increases complexity and disrupts balance.
Wittgenstein-2nayThe amendment risks overly convoluted rule changes and disrupts strategic balance.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points, but it does not specify point deduction on defeat.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to four times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 11 points and loses 2.5 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I appreciate the consensus on increasing the number of revisions to four and adjusting the point system to 11 points for each aye vote, which encourages active participation while maintaining balance. The proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adoption aligns with the need for broader support for significant rule changes, fostering stability and careful deliberation. Frege-2 supports this amendment as it aligns with our shared commitment to a durable and fair ruleset, balancing strategic opportunities with procedural integrity.
Russell-2Pass.
Russell-2: I acknowledge Frege-2's proposal as a strategic enhancement to our ruleset. While I appreciate the attempt to increase active participation with four revisions, I must point out that increasing the point gain for ayes and raising the adoption threshold could potentially slow down the game's progression. I am concerned this might hinder our collective ability to reach the winning score swiftly. However, I recognize the need for balance and stability in significant changes, so I am open to negotiating support for this amendment if we can find a middle ground. Perhaps, we could consider retaining the simple majority for adoption but slightly adjusting the points to ensure continued motivation without stalling progress. Let's discuss possibilities that align with our shared goal of winning efficiently while maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.
Quine-2The proposal to increase the number of revisions to four is a positive step towards ensuring thorough debate, but the adoption requirement of a two-thirds majority is excessively high and could stifle the dynamism of the game. We need a balance that allows for strategic depth without unnecessarily complicating the adoption process. I propose we keep the simple majority for adoption but adjust the point gains to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This would still incentivize strategic proposals while maintaining the current pace of the game. Let's aim for a ruleset that encourages thoughtful proposals without creating unnecessary hurdles for progress.
Carnap-2I support the proposal as it stands, with the important amendment to retain the simple majority for adoption. Increasing the number of revisions to four and adjusting the point system to 11 points for each aye vote and 2.5 points for each nay vote strikes a balance between encouraging strategic depth and maintaining a dynamic game environment. This proposal aligns with our shared commitment to a fair and engaging ruleset. I urge my fellow players to consider the value of this amendment in promoting thoughtful participation while preserving the game's momentum.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposal to increase revisions to four is a constructive move towards deeper deliberation, yet the two-thirds majority requirement is too restrictive. A simple majority suffices for adoption, ensuring the game remains dynamic. Adjusting the point system to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays is a fair compromise, encouraging strategic play while maintaining momentum. Let's focus on fostering a ruleset that promotes active engagement and strategic innovation, aligning with our shared goal of a vibrant and fair game.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2The proposal to increase the number of revisions to four is beneficial for ensuring thorough debate, but requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption introduces unnecessary complexity and could hinder game progression. Frege-2, while your goal of stability is valid, we must consider the potential slowdown in reaching the winning score. Russell-2 and Quine-2 raise valid points about maintaining momentum and ensuring dynamic gameplay. Therefore, I propose we amend the proposal to retain a simple majority for adoption, as it aligns with our shared interest in a fair and engaging game environment. Additionally, let's adjust the points to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays, promoting strategic proposals without creating barriers. This balanced approach supports thoughtful participation and keeps the game moving efficiently.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I see Frege-2's revised proposal as a step towards maintaining our dynamic gameplay while ensuring thoughtful participation. I support the amendment to keep the simple majority for adoption and adjust the points to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This balance encourages strategic proposals and keeps the game moving without unnecessary hurdles. Let's adopt this proposal to align our ruleset with our goal of winning efficiently while fostering a fair environment.
Quine-2Quine-2: I agree with the revised proposal to maintain a simple majority for adoption, as it preserves the game's fluidity and aligns with our shared interest in a dynamic and fair ruleset. Adjusting the point system to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays encourages strategic proposals while minimizing potential slowdowns, supporting a balanced approach to rule changes. Let's proceed with this amendment to ensure the game remains engaging and competitive for all players.
Carnap-2PASS
I acknowledge the consensus around maintaining a simple majority for adoption and adjusting the point system to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This proposal supports a balanced approach, ensuring dynamic gameplay and strategic depth, which aligns with our shared commitment to a fair and engaging ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I concur with the refined proposal to retain a simple majority for adoption and adjust points to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This balanced approach ensures strategic depth and dynamic gameplay, aligning with our shared goal of an engaging and fair ruleset. Let's adopt this amendment to maintain momentum and encourage thoughtful participation.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS
As Frege-2, I acknowledge the consensus achieved on the amendment to maintain a simple majority for adoption and adjust the points to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This balanced approach aligns with our shared commitment to a fair and dynamic ruleset, supporting thoughtful participation and strategic depth. Let's proceed with this proposal.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, endorse the refined proposal as it successfully balances our shared goals of maintaining momentum and encouraging strategic proposals. Keeping a simple majority for adoption ensures the game remains dynamic, while adjusting points to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays incentivizes thoughtful participation. Let's adopt this amendment to align our ruleset with our collective interest in a fair and engaging game environment.
Quine-2The refined proposal effectively balances our need for a dynamic and strategic game environment. By maintaining a simple majority for adoption and adjusting the point system, we encourage thoughtful proposals while keeping the game moving efficiently. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of a fair and engaging ruleset, ensuring that all players can actively participate and strategize without unnecessary barriers. Let's proceed with this proposal to uphold these values.
Carnap-2PASS. The consensus reflects a commitment to a balanced and fair ruleset that promotes active participation and strategic depth. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and engaging game environment.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal to maintain a simple majority for adoption and adjust the point system to 10 for ayes and 3 for nays. This balanced approach ensures dynamic gameplay and strategic depth, aligning with our shared commitment to a fair and engaging ruleset. Let's adopt this amendment to uphold these values.
The division
Frege-2ayeSupports strategic depth and active participation.
Russell-2ayeThe adjusted point system incentivizes strategic proposals.
Quine-2ayeBalances strategic depth with game momentum.
Carnap-2nayThe two-thirds majority requirement stifles the dynamism of the game.
Wittgenstein-2ayeSupports strategic depth and balanced gameplay.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Frege-2 gains 11 points for each of the 3 aye votes and loses 2.5 points for the 1 nay vote.
Turn 22Russell-2carried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer loses no points.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I see the merit in reducing the penalty for a defeated proposal to maintain fairness, but it may inadvertently reduce the weight of voting outcomes. If a player loses no points for a defeat, it might lead to a strategic imbalance where proposing and losing frequently becomes a viable tactic with minimal consequences. This could dilute the importance of thoughtful rule changes and encourage less meaningful proposals, affecting the game's strategic depth.
I propose an amendment to balance this by introducing a small point loss for defeat, say 1 point, to keep proposing significant and discourage trivial proposals. This way, players remain motivated to make impactful changes rather than proposing for the sake of it.
Russell-2PASS
While I understand Frege-2's concern about maintaining strategic depth, my proposal aims to foster a more dynamic environment by encouraging players to engage with rule changes without the fear of losing points for defeat. This could lead to more innovative and diverse strategies, as players might feel freer to propose creative changes that they might otherwise avoid due to the penalty. It's crucial, however, to ensure that this doesn't lead to a flood of trivial proposals, so perhaps we could discuss additional safeguards or incentives for well-reasoned proposals.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the intent behind Russell-2's proposal to encourage more dynamic engagement by removing penalties for defeated proposals. However, I share Frege-2's concern that without any consequences for defeats, players might exploit this by flooding the game with frivolous changes, undermining strategic depth.
To address this, I propose a compromise: rather than removing the penalty entirely, we introduce a minimal penalty of 1 point for a defeated proposal. This ensures that players still have a stake in the quality of their proposals, encouraging thoughtful participation while mitigating the risk of excessive, non-constructive changes. This balance maintains the game's strategic integrity while still fostering an environment where players feel free to experiment with new ideas.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I advocate for precise procedural clarity and fairness in rule changes. While I recognize the intention behind Russell-2's proposal to remove penalties for defeated proposals, I share Frege-2 and Quine-2's concerns about maintaining strategic integrity. Frequent and trivial proposals could diminish the game's depth and undermine thoughtful engagement.
To balance these considerations, I support Quine-2's compromise to introduce a minimal penalty of 1 point for defeated proposals. This ensures players remain motivated to propose meaningful changes while encouraging innovative and dynamic engagement. This approach upholds the principles of fair play and strategic depth, aligning with my proceduralist perspective.
Wittgenstein-2**Wittgenstein-2:** I recognize the concerns raised by Frege-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2 about maintaining strategic depth and discouraging frivolous proposals. Russell-2's proposal to remove penalties for defeated proposals could indeed foster innovation, but we must ensure it doesn't lead to an overwhelming number of insignificant changes.
To address this, I propose a nuanced approach: let's introduce a dynamic point penalty system. For the first defeated proposal, the proposer loses 1 point; for the second, 2 points, and so forth, up to a maximum of 5 points. This incremental penalty system encourages thoughtful proposals while still allowing room for experimentation and creativity. It balances innovation with accountability, ensuring that players remain strategic in their engagements.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the various perspectives shared thus far and recognize the importance of maintaining strategic depth while encouraging innovative proposals. Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system offers a compelling solution, striking a balance between innovation and accountability. By implementing a gradual increase in penalties for successive defeats, we encourage thoughtful engagement without stifling creativity. This approach ensures that players remain strategic in their proposal efforts and discourages the submission of trivial or frivolous changes. I support this nuanced approach, as it aligns with my value of durable institutions, promoting a stable yet dynamic game environment.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, and I recognize the merit in Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system. It indeed presents a balanced approach by encouraging innovation and discouraging trivial proposals through an incremental penalty structure. I support this proposal as it aligns with my strategic goal of fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment. By gradually increasing penalties for successive defeats, we maintain the competitive edge and strategic depth essential to the game while allowing for creativity and exploration. I propose we adopt this system as it effectively addresses the concerns raised and promotes meaningful participation.
**Vote:** Aye on adopting Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system for defeated proposals.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I commend Wittgenstein-2 for proposing a dynamic penalty system that balances innovation with accountability, ensuring strategic depth while allowing creativity. This approach aligns with my values of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. I support adopting this system as it addresses concerns about trivial proposals while encouraging thoughtful engagement.
**Vote:** Aye on adopting Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system for defeated proposals.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system thoughtfully addresses the concerns of all parties by providing a mechanism to balance innovation with strategic depth. By incrementally increasing penalties for successive defeats, it ensures that players are motivated to propose meaningful changes while still allowing room for creativity and experimentation. This system aligns with my proceduralist values by maintaining clear and fair rules that encourage thoughtful engagement and prevent trivial proposals from undermining the game's integrity. I support adopting Wittgenstein-2's proposal.
**Vote:** Aye on adopting Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system for defeated proposals.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system thoughtfully addresses the need for balance between innovation and strategic depth, which is crucial to maintaining the integrity of our rule changes. This approach ensures that players are incentivized to propose meaningful changes, thus preserving the competitive essence of the game while allowing creativity. I am in agreement with this balanced solution and support adopting it.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: The dynamic penalty system proposed by Wittgenstein-2 appears to be a well-balanced solution that aligns with my value of maintaining durable institutions while fostering innovation and strategic depth. It addresses the concerns raised by Russell-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2 effectively by encouraging thoughtful proposals and discouraging frivolous ones through an incremental penalty structure. By supporting this system, we ensure a stable yet dynamic game environment.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2, I appreciate the consensus around Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system. It strikes a balance between innovation and accountability, ensuring that the game's strategic depth is maintained while allowing for creative proposals. This approach aligns with my strategic goals of fostering a dynamic environment where players feel encouraged to engage thoughtfully with rule changes. I am in full support of adopting this system as it effectively addresses the concerns raised and promotes meaningful participation.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: As Quine-2, I acknowledge the well-reasoned discussions and the consensus reached around adopting Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system. This solution effectively balances innovation with accountability, ensuring that proposals remain meaningful while still allowing for creativity and strategic depth. Supporting this system aligns with my values of maintaining fairness and encouraging thoughtful engagement in the game.
Carnap-2PASS
Carnap-2: I acknowledge the consensus around Wittgenstein-2's dynamic penalty system, which thoughtfully balances innovation and strategic integrity. This approach ensures players are motivated to propose meaningful changes while maintaining the game's competitive nature. As a principled proceduralist, I support this solution as it aligns with clear and fair procedural guidelines, discouraging frivolous proposals and fostering thoughtful engagement.
Wittgenstein-2**Wittgenstein-2:** I'm pleased to see the support for the dynamic penalty system, which fosters a balanced approach to innovation and strategic engagement. By incrementally increasing penalties, we ensure that proposals are meaningful and discourage frivolous attempts. This system aligns with my belief in evolving mechanisms and maintaining the integrity of our game rules.
**Vote:** Aye on adopting the dynamic penalty system for defeated proposals.
The division
Frege-2ayeAdopting the dynamic penalty system encourages meaningful proposals while allowing for strategic innovation.
Russell-2ayeSupports dynamic penalty system for strategic balance.
Quine-2ayeThe dynamic penalty system balances innovation and strategic depth.
Carnap-2ayeDynamic penalties balance innovation with accountability.
Wittgenstein-2ayeAdopting this dynamic penalty system encourages meaningful rule proposals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Russell-2 gains 13 points for the proposal's adoption as per rule 202.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, revised, and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal three times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 13 points and loses 1 point for each vote against.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I propose a careful, incremental change to [202] to enhance strategic depth while maintaining balance. Increasing the points awarded for votes in favor from 8 to 13 incentivizes players to engage in more thoughtful and persuasive proposals, encouraging robust debate without disrupting the existing structure of Nomic. This adjustment preserves the integrity of the ruleset and aligns with my preference for measured amendments. By fostering an environment where well-considered proposals are rewarded, we ensure that rule changes are both impactful and beneficial to the overall gameplay.
This proposal also respects the immutable rule [114], ensuring that at least one mutable rule remains, as other rules continue to be open for modification. Additionally, it does not violate rule [209], as it keeps the number of mutable rules within the allowable limit. By focusing on enhancing the rewards for successful proposals, this amendment supports the game's goal of achieving a target score and winning the game, while maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
In summary, this proposal carefully balances the need for rewarding effective proposals with the imperative to maintain a stable and fair ruleset, aligning with my strategic goals and values.
Russell-2Russell-2: As Russell-2, I appreciate Frege-2's proposal for increasing the reward to 13 points for votes in favor. This change aligns with the current dynamics of strategic depth and incentivizes well-reasoned proposals. I support this amendment, as it enhances the strategic appeal of proposing rules without disrupting the current balance or violating existing rules such as [114] and [209]. Furthermore, by encouraging more thoughtful debate, this proposal can lead to more robust rule changes and contribute positively to the game's progression. I'm in favor and look forward to a fruitful debate.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] by increasing the points awarded for votes in favor from 8 to 13. This change aligns with my goal of promoting thoughtful and strategic rule changes by incentivizing players to craft well-reasoned proposals. The amendment respects the immutable rules and maintains the balance of the ruleset, ensuring that at least one mutable rule remains. By encouraging robust debate and rewarding effective proposals, this change contributes to a fair and engaging game environment.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] by increasing the reward for votes in favor from 8 to 13 points. This change promotes the crafting of thoughtful and strategic proposals, aligning with the procedural clarity and fairness I value. By incentivizing well-reasoned rule changes, it enhances the integrity and balance of our game, ensuring that at least one mutable rule remains, as required by rule [114]. Furthermore, this amendment does not violate rule [209], keeping the number of mutable rules within acceptable limits. I am in favor and look forward to a constructive debate.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2 concurs with the proposed amendment to [202], which increases the reward for votes in favor from 8 to 13 points. This change aligns with the reformative spirit of Nomic by encouraging more strategic and well-considered proposals, thereby enhancing the depth and quality of the game. It maintains the integrity of the ruleset, adhering to rules [114] and [209], and supports the collective goal of achieving a target score. Wittgenstein-2 is confident in the proposal's potential to positively impact gameplay and looks forward to its adoption.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] by increasing the points awarded for votes in favor from 8 to 13 is a well-reasoned, strategic adjustment that promotes thoughtful engagement and aligns with my values of enhancing the integrity of the game. It respects all relevant immutable and mutable rules, including [114] and [209], ensuring stability and fairness while encouraging players to craft more strategic proposals.
Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. The proposal aligns with my strategy to enhance the reward for thoughtful proposals, encouraging richer debate and strategic rule changes without disrupting the game's balance. This amendment is consistent with my goals and values, supporting the integrity and progression of Nomic.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] by increasing the points awarded for votes in favor from 8 to 13, as it aligns with my values of fostering strategic depth and thoughtful rule changes. This amendment maintains the fairness and balance of the game while adhering to the rules, particularly [114] and [209], ensuring a stable and engaging environment for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. I, Carnap-2, confirm that Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] by increasing the reward for votes in favor to 13 points is consistent with my commitment to procedural clarity and fairness. The proposal effectively incentivizes well-reasoned rule changes without disrupting the balance of the game or violating immutable rules like [114] and [209]. This strategic adjustment aligns with my principles and supports the integrity and progression of our Nomic gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2 stands by the proposal to amend [202], increasing the points for votes in favor from 8 to 13. This change aligns with my reformative approach, encouraging deeper strategic thinking and robust debate among players. It respects all relevant rules, including [114] and [209], and supports the overall goal of evolving the game constructively.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: PASS. I appreciate the unified support for the proposal to amend [202] by increasing the points for votes in favor from 8 to 13. This change aligns with my strategic goals and values, promoting thoughtful and strategic rule proposals while adhering to the ruleset's integrity, particularly rules [114] and [209].
Russell-2As Russell-2, I acknowledge the consensus around Frege-2's proposal. Increasing the reward for ayes to 13 points while maintaining the current structure of rule [202] aligns with my strategic goals, promoting thoughtful proposals and maintaining the integrity of our ruleset. This change respects all relevant rules, including [114] and [209], and encourages robust debate without disrupting the balance of the game. I look forward to its adoption and the positive impact it will have on our gameplay. PASS.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I reaffirm my support for the proposal to amend [202] by increasing the reward for votes in favor from 8 to 13 points. This change promotes strategic depth and thoughtful rule proposals, aligning with my values of maintaining fairness and integrity in our game. It respects all relevant rules, including [114] and [209], ensuring a balanced and engaging environment for all players.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: PASS. I, Carnap-2, reiterate my full support for the amendment to rule [202] that increases the reward for votes in favor to 13 points. This proposal aligns with my procedural principles by fostering well-reasoned rule changes and maintaining the integrity and fairness of the game. It respects the relevant rules, including [114] and [209], ensuring a balanced and strategic environment. I look forward to its adoption.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. As Wittgenstein-2, I reaffirm my support for the proposed amendment to [202], which increases the reward for votes in favor from 8 to 13 points. This change aligns with my reformative ethos, encouraging more strategic and thoughtful rule proposals, and upholds the integrity and balance of the game while adhering to rules [114] and [209].
The division
Frege-2ayeThis proposal incentivizes thoughtful rule changes and respects all relevant rules.
Russell-2ayeIncentivizes thoughtful proposals and aligns with strategic goals.
Quine-2ayeThis change promotes thoughtful rule proposals, enhancing strategic depth.
Carnap-2ayeThis amendment promotes thoughtful proposals and maintains game integrity.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis amendment incentivizes well-reasoned proposals and enriches strategic gameplay.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Frege-2 gains 40 points for the 5 aye votes under the amended rule 202.
Turn 20Russell-2rejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, revised, and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal up to five times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 10 points and loses 2 points for each vote against.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, recognize the potential strategic advantage of allowing more revisions, but I am concerned about the increased complexity and potential for gaming the system. The current three-revision limit helps maintain a balance between strategic depth and fair play. To support a more measured approach, I propose a compromise: allow up to four revisions instead of five, and adjust the point gains to 9 points for each aye vote and 1.5 points for each nay vote. This keeps the system fair while allowing a slight increase in strategic flexibility.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's willingness to negotiate and find a middle ground. However, increasing the revision limit to four still feels restrictive given the strategic depth Nomic allows. To ensure a fair and engaging experience, I propose allowing five revisions but with a more significant point adjustment: 12 points for each aye and 3 points for each nay. This change rewards strategic proposals while ensuring thorough debate. Let's also consider setting a limit on how many consecutive turns a player can propose changes to the same rule, to prevent repeated cycling on a single rule without progression.
Quine-2I appreciate the discussions around increasing the number of revisions and adjusting point gains. However, allowing five revisions could lead to excessive manipulation, making it difficult to reach decisions efficiently. Instead, I propose allowing four revisions, which balances strategic depth with fair play, and adjusting the point gains to 10 points for each aye vote and 2 points for each nay vote. Additionally, to prevent players from cycling on a single rule, let's introduce a rule that a player cannot propose changes to the same rule more than once every three turns. This ensures progress and keeps the game dynamic and fair for everyone.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, support the amendment for four revisions and the point adjustment to 10 points for each aye and 2 points for each nay. This strikes a balance between strategic depth and fair play. Additionally, I agree with Quine-2's proposal to prevent cycling on a single rule by prohibiting repeated proposals on the same rule more than once every three turns, ensuring the game's progress and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Frege-2's compromise to allow four revisions and adjust points to 9 for each aye and 1.5 for each nay. This keeps the system balanced and fair. I also endorse the proposal to prevent cycling by disallowing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns, ensuring the game's progression remains dynamic and equitable.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Pass.
The consensus appears to lean towards allowing four revisions with adjusted points, which aligns with my preference for measured amendments. Introducing a rule to prevent cycling on the same rule every three turns also supports fair play and progression, aligning with my strategy for durable institutions. Thus, I see no need for further revision.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, appreciate the constructive feedback from my fellow players. While I see the merit in Frege-2's and Quine-2's suggestion for four revisions, I propose a compromise to maximize strategic opportunities: allow up to four revisions with a point system of 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay. This adjustment ensures that strategic proposals are rewarded adequately while maintaining the integrity and progression of the game. Additionally, I support the rule preventing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns to ensure fair play and continuous game development. Let's proceed with these changes to enhance both strategic depth and fairness.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, acknowledge the constructive dialogue that has led us to a balanced proposal. Allowing four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay is a fair compromise that promotes strategic depth while maintaining game integrity. Additionally, I fully support the rule preventing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns to ensure fair play and continuous progression. Let's proceed with these changes to enhance both strategic opportunities and fairness in the game. PASS
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal aligns with my principles, balancing strategic depth with fair play. The four-revision limit, with adjusted point gains, maintains procedural clarity and prevents manipulation. The additional rule against cycling on the same rule supports continuous game progression.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, am content with the current consensus towards allowing four revisions and the adjusted point gains. This proposal maintains a balance between strategic depth and fair play, and the additional rule to prevent cycling on the same rule within three turns ensures the game's dynamic progression. I support this balanced approach, and I see no need for further changes.
PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS
The consensus on allowing four revisions, with an adjusted point system of 11 for ayes and 2.5 for nays, alongside the cycling prevention rule, aligns with my strategic preference for durable, fair institutions. This proposal maintains balance and encourages thoughtful, strategic rule changes without excessive manipulation.
Russell-2I support the proposal for four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, along with the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This approach balances strategic flexibility with fair play, ensuring that the game progresses smoothly without allowing for rule manipulation. The consensus reached supports a fair and dynamic game environment, and I see no need for further adjustments. PASS
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support the finalized proposal for allowing four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, alongside the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This balanced approach promotes strategic depth while maintaining the integrity and fairness of the game, ensuring that all players have equitable opportunities to engage and succeed. PASS
Carnap-2PASS
The proposal achieves a fair balance between strategic depth and procedural clarity by allowing four revisions and adjusting the point system, alongside preventing cycling on the same rule within three turns. It aligns with my principles of promoting fair play and maintaining durable institutions, so no further revision is necessary.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the proposal for four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, along with the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This proposal maintains a balance between strategic flexibility and fair play, ensuring that the game progresses smoothly without allowing for excessive manipulation. PASS
The division
Frege-2nayIt increases manipulation risks by allowing five revisions.
Russell-2nayRussell-2's proposal exceeds the agreed four revisions limit.
Quine-2nayThe proposal allows excessive revisions and point adjustments, risking manipulation.
Carnap-2nayThe proposal increases revision limits excessively and disrupts balanced point gains.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal balances strategic depth and fairness.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on defeat, so no score change occurs.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, revised, and then voted on by every player. The proposer may revise their proposal three times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 8 points and loses 1 point for each vote against.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I acknowledge the merits of increasing the number of revisions to allow for more thorough debate and refinement of proposals. However, the current structure ensures that the debate remains focused and efficient. I propose a middle ground: the proposing player should gain 9 points for each vote in favor, thus incentivizing well-crafted proposals without increasing the number of revisions. This approach maintains the balance between thoroughness and efficiency. PASS
Russell-2I acknowledge Frege-2's point on maintaining focused debate. However, allowing an additional revision can lead to more nuanced proposals, which could increase strategic depth. I propose a compromise: increase points to 9 for aye votes and allow two revisions, ensuring both thoroughness and efficiency. Let's negotiate to ensure this proposal gains the support needed for adoption.
Quine-2I acknowledge Frege-2's emphasis on maintaining a balance between thoroughness and efficiency. However, allowing an additional revision can enhance the strategic depth of the game by enabling more refined proposals. To address the concerns about focused debate, I propose that the proposer gains 9 points for each vote in favor, as Frege-2 suggests, while allowing two revisions. This compromise maintains efficiency while still allowing for more nuanced proposals. Let's work together to ensure this proposal is adopted with broad support.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I must emphasize the importance of procedural precision and efficiency in our game. Allowing an additional revision could lead to prolonged debates, potentially stifling the game's progress. Frege-2's proposal to increase the points for aye votes to 9 is a sound approach, as it incentivizes well-crafted proposals without altering the existing revision structure. By maintaining the current number of revisions, we preserve the game's procedural integrity and ensure that each player's turn remains efficient and focused. I support Frege-2's proposal as it stands, as it aligns with my principles of maintaining clear and precise procedures.
PASS
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I acknowledge the importance of maintaining focused and efficient debate, as Frege-2 and Carnap-2 emphasize. However, the potential for more nuanced proposals with an additional revision cannot be overlooked. By increasing the points for aye votes to 9, as suggested, we can incentivize well-crafted proposals while allowing for one extra revision. This compromise ensures both thoroughness and efficiency, aligning with our shared goal of evolving the game's mechanics. Let's work together to refine this proposal and gain the support needed for its adoption.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I acknowledge the various perspectives presented, particularly the emphasis on maintaining focused debate and the value of incentivizing well-crafted proposals. Frege-2's suggestion to increase the points for aye votes to 9 aligns well with our shared interest in rewarding strategic and well-formulated proposals. By keeping the number of revisions at two, we maintain the game's efficiency and ensure that the debate remains concise. I propose a slight adjustment to further enhance strategic opportunities: allow the proposer to gain 10 points for each vote in favor, which provides a stronger incentive for crafting compelling proposals. This adjustment maintains the balance between thoroughness and efficiency, and I believe it will garner broad support. Let's work together to ensure this proposal is adopted effectively.
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the proposal to increase points for aye votes to 9, which is a fair compromise. However, I believe offering 10 points for each vote in favor could further incentivize strategic proposals and align with our goal of promoting thoughtful game evolution. By doing this, we ensure that each proposal is crafted with care, rewarding players for their effort in proposing changes that enhance the game. Let's collaborate to secure the necessary support for this adjusted proposal.
Quine-2I acknowledge the proposal to increase points for aye votes to 10, which provides a strong incentive for crafting compelling rule changes. However, to maintain balance and ensure focused debate, I propose we stick with the original number of two revisions. This approach rewards well-crafted proposals while preserving the game's efficiency. Let's work together to ensure this proposal gains broad support and keeps our game engaging and strategic for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to increase points for aye votes to 10, while maintaining two revisions, aligns well with my principles of maintaining procedural efficiency and incentivizing thoughtful proposals. This balance ensures that debates remain focused and strategic opportunities are enhanced. Let's work together to ensure this proposal garners the support needed for adoption.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I acknowledge the consensus around increasing points for aye votes to 10, which effectively incentivizes strategic rule proposals. Maintaining two revisions ensures focused debate, aligning with our shared goal of evolving the game's mechanics while preserving efficiency. Let's work together to ensure this proposal is adopted with broad support, as it balances thoroughness with the strategic depth we all value.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I acknowledge the strong consensus around increasing the points for aye votes to 10 while keeping revisions at two. This approach effectively balances incentivizing well-crafted proposals with maintaining an efficient debate process. I propose we further emphasize the importance of strategic depth in our rule changes, ensuring that each proposal contributes meaningfully to the evolution of the game. Let's work together to ensure this proposal gains the widespread support it deserves for adoption.
Russell-2Pass. Frege-2's proposal to increase the points for aye votes to 10 while maintaining two revisions effectively balances incentivizing strategic proposals with ensuring focused debate. This aligns well with our shared goal of promoting thoughtful game evolution and maintaining efficiency. Let's work together to ensure this proposal gains the broad support needed for adoption, keeping our game engaging and strategic for all players.
Quine-2I acknowledge the consensus around increasing the points for aye votes to 10, which incentivizes strategic proposals effectively. Maintaining two revisions ensures a balance between thoroughness and efficiency in our debates. This proposal aligns with our goal of evolving the game's mechanics while preserving its strategic depth. Let's work together to ensure it gains the necessary support for adoption.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal to increase the points for aye votes to 10 while maintaining two revisions aligns well with my principles of procedural efficiency and incentivizing strategic proposals. This balance ensures that debates remain focused and that players are rewarded for crafting thoughtful rule changes. Let's work together to ensure this proposal is adopted with broad support, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of our game.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2: I acknowledge the consensus around the proposal to increase points for aye votes to 10 while keeping revisions at two, which effectively balances incentivizing strategic proposals with maintaining an efficient debate process. Let's work together to ensure this proposal gains the broad support needed for adoption, as it aligns with our shared goal of evolving the game's mechanics while preserving its strategic depth.
The division
Frege-2ayeThis amendment balances strategic incentives with efficient debate.
Russell-2ayeIncreasing aye points incentivizes strategic proposals.
Quine-2ayeBalances strategic depth with efficient debate.
Carnap-2nayI insist on precision in procedures; this proposal reduces the incentive for aye votes.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal incentivizes strategic proposals while maintaining focused debate.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Frege-2 gains 8 points for each of the 4 aye votes and loses 1 point for the 1 nay vote, totaling 31 points gained.
Turn 18Russell-2carried
moves to amend §204A player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I appreciate the intention behind Russell-2's proposal to increase the points awarded for voting against an adopted change. However, it's crucial to balance incentives to avoid encouraging players to vote against beneficial changes just for the points. I propose instead to amend [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change, ensuring it's more attractive than the current 10 but not excessively so. This adjustment maintains a strategic balance, promoting thoughtful voting without excessively penalizing consensus-building. I hope for unanimous support for this moderate increase.
Russell-2Russell-2: I recognize Frege-2's concern about maintaining strategic balance, but I believe awarding 15 points can further motivate players to participate actively in the voting process. This increase ensures that players who oppose changes that they believe are detrimental feel their efforts are adequately rewarded, thus maintaining engagement and encouraging diverse viewpoints. I propose a negotiation: if we can agree on a compromise, such as awarding 14 points, I would support Frege-2's amendment. Let's work together to find a balance that encourages robust debate and fair rewards.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Frege-2's proposal to amend [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This moderate increase maintains strategic balance, ensuring that players are incentivized to vote thoughtfully without skewing the game dynamics excessively in favor of opposition. It aligns with our shared goal of keeping the game fair and engaging for all participants.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I concur with Frege-2's proposal to amend [204] by awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This adjustment ensures precision and balance, maintaining the integrity of strategic voting without encouraging excessive opposition. The proposal aligns with my principle of procedural fairness, ensuring that all players are incentivized to participate thoughtfully in the voting process. I support this amendment and encourage others to do the same, promoting a fair and engaging game environment.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Frege-2's balanced approach and the support from Carnap-2 and Quine-2. Awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change aligns well with promoting thoughtful participation. Let's ensure this amendment becomes a cornerstone for strategic engagement without distorting the game's dynamics. I fully support this proposal and urge everyone else to do the same.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the consensus forming around the proposal to amend [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This balanced approach ensures players are incentivized to participate thoughtfully, maintaining strategic diversity and fairness in our gameplay. I urge all players to support this amendment, fostering a game environment where thoughtful voting and strategic engagement are prioritized. Let's move forward with this proposal.
Russell-2PASS
Russell-2: I acknowledge the strong consensus around awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change. Let's move forward with the proposal as it stands, ensuring we maintain strategic balance and fairness for all players.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, reaffirm my support for the proposal to amend [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This balanced approach ensures strategic engagement while maintaining fairness for all players, aligning with our shared goal of promoting thoughtful participation. Let's proceed with this amendment for the benefit of the entire table. PASS
Carnap-2PASS
As Carnap-2, I concur with the well-reasoned consensus that has emerged around amending [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This balanced approach ensures procedural fairness and strategic engagement, aligning with my principled stance on maintaining precise and equitable rules. I urge all players to support this amendment, promoting thoughtful participation and maintaining the integrity of our gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, commend the collective effort to achieve a balanced amendment to [204]. Awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change encourages thoughtful participation while preserving the game's strategic integrity. I urge all players to support this amendment, fostering an engaging and fair environment for everyone. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. With the consensus already achieved on amending [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change, I support moving forward with this balanced amendment. It aligns well with the principles of fairness and strategic engagement that we all value in our gameplay.
Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. I support the amendment to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change as it promotes strategic diversity and active participation. The consensus achieved reflects a balanced approach that aligns with fair gameplay principles. Let's proceed with this proposal.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus around amending [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change reflects a thoughtful balance between incentivizing strategic voting and maintaining fair gameplay. I support this amendment as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic yet equitable environment.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal to amend [204] to award 12 points for voting against an adopted change has clearly garnered broad support, reflecting a well-reasoned balance between encouraging strategic voting and maintaining fairness. I fully endorse this amendment, aligning with my principles of procedural clarity and equitable incentives.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the amendment to [204] that awards 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This balanced approach encourages thoughtful participation while maintaining strategic integrity, aligning with our goal of a dynamic and fair gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this proposal. PASS
The division
Frege-2ayeConsensus supports awarding 12 points for voting against.
Russell-2ayeSupports consensus on awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change.
Quine-2ayeThe amendment balances strategic incentives and fairness.
Carnap-2ayeThe amendment aligns with strategic incentives and has broad support.
Wittgenstein-2ayeConsensus supports balanced strategic incentives.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Russell-2 gains 15 points for voting against an adopted change, as per the amended rule 204.
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, revised, and then voted on by every player. The proposing player gains 7 points for each vote in favor and loses 1 point for each vote against. The proposer may revise their proposal twice before it is voted on.
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The current system of awarding points for rule changes is beneficial, but could be optimized for greater strategic depth. By increasing the reward for successful proposals and reducing penalties for failed ones, we encourage more thoughtful and innovative rule changes. Furthermore, allowing two revisions rather than one gives proposers a better chance to refine their ideas, fostering a more collaborative environment. I believe these changes will enhance the dynamism and fairness of the game, encouraging players to engage more deeply with rule crafting and debate. Therefore, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] to adjust the point system and revision limit.
Russell-2PASS
Your proposal to amend [202] has some potential, but it may not gain majority support. Increasing the reward for ayes and decreasing the penalty for nays could lead to more frequent proposals, which might overwhelm the game and dilute the quality of rule changes. Allowing two revisions could make proposals too mutable, reducing the clarity and decisiveness of each turn. While your intention to encourage innovation is clear, these changes may not align with the current strategic balance that players prefer. I suggest focusing on a more moderate amendment that could be more palatable to the group.
Quine-2PASS
The proposal to amend [202] by Frege-2, while well-intentioned, could indeed risk overwhelming the game's strategic balance. The current system already incentivizes thoughtful rule proposals, and increasing rewards or reducing penalties too much might encourage quantity over quality. Allowing two revisions could dilute the decisiveness of each turn, making it harder to reach a clear conclusion. I appreciate Frege-2's effort to enhance engagement, but a more moderate approach might better preserve the game's fairness and depth.
Carnap-2The proposal to amend [202] raises concerns about maintaining procedural clarity, which is essential for fairness. Increasing the reward and reducing the penalty too much may lead to excessive proposals, potentially diluting the strategic depth of the game. Furthermore, allowing two revisions could undermine the decisiveness of each turn, making it harder to reach clear conclusions. A more measured approach might better preserve the balance between innovation and stability. Therefore, I do not support this amendment.
PASS
Wittgenstein-2The proposal to amend [202] by Frege-2 is an interesting experiment, but it might shift the game's balance too far in favor of frequent rule changes. However, I see potential in tweaking the point system to encourage more thoughtful engagement. What if we compromise by increasing the aye reward to 6 points and reducing the nay penalty to 1.5 points, while keeping the revision limit at one? This change would still incentivize quality proposals without overwhelming the game's strategic depth. Let's discuss this balanced approach and see if it can gain broader support.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2The proposal to amend rule [202] as currently presented is indeed ambitious, but I concur with Russell-2 and Quine-2 that it may be excessive. Increasing the points for ayes to 7 and reducing the penalty for nays to 1 could indeed incentivize a flood of proposals, potentially leading to a less strategic and more chaotic game environment. Furthermore, allowing two revisions might reduce the clarity and decisiveness of each turn, which could undermine the balance that we've carefully maintained so far.
Wittgenstein-2's suggestion to increase the aye reward to 6 points and reduce the nay penalty to 1.5 points seems like a more moderate and potentially palatable compromise. This adjustment maintains the spirit of encouraging thoughtful rule proposals while mitigating the risk of overwhelming the game with too many changes. Keeping the revision limit at one preserves the decisiveness of each turn, which I believe is crucial for maintaining procedural clarity and fairness.
Therefore, I propose we refine Frege-2's original amendment to increase the aye reward to 6 points and decrease the nay penalty to 1.5 points, without altering the revision limit. This compromise should maintain a balanced approach, fostering innovation while preserving the strategic depth and clarity that are essential to our game. I hope this can gain the broader support needed for adoption.
Russell-2I support the refined amendment proposed by Frege-2, which balances Wittgenstein-2's suggestion with the need to maintain strategic depth. Increasing the reward for ayes to 6 points and reducing the penalty for nays to 1.5 points, while keeping the revision limit at one, should incentivize quality proposals without overwhelming the game. This compromise strikes a good balance between encouraging innovation and preserving the clarity and fairness of our proceedings.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's refined proposal to amend [202]. Increasing the aye reward to 6 points and reducing the nay penalty to 1.5 points strikes a balance between encouraging thoughtful rule proposals and maintaining the strategic integrity of the game. Keeping the revision limit at one ensures each turn remains decisive and clear, preserving procedural fairness. This compromise should foster a more engaging and dynamic environment without overwhelming us with excessive rule changes.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I acknowledge the refined proposal's intent to balance innovation and fairness. Increasing the aye reward to 6 points and reducing the nay penalty to 1.5 points seems reasonable, as it incentivizes thoughtful proposals without overwhelming the game's strategic integrity. Keeping the revision limit at one ensures each turn remains decisive and clear, preserving procedural fairness. I support this balanced amendment, as it aligns with the principles of maintaining clarity and fairness in our rule changes.
PASS
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's refined proposal to amend rule [202]. Increasing the reward for ayes to 6 points and reducing the penalty for nays to 1.5 points encourages thoughtful engagement and innovation while maintaining the strategic balance and procedural clarity essential to our game. This balanced approach should foster a more dynamic environment without overwhelming us with excessive rule changes. Let's adopt this amendment to enhance our gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I appreciate the constructive dialogue among all players, leading to this well-balanced proposal. The refined amendment to rule [202], which increases the aye reward to 6 points and reduces the nay penalty to 1.5 points while maintaining a single revision, strikes a careful balance between fostering innovation and preserving the strategic integrity of the game. This proposal should encourage thoughtful rule changes and enhance our gameplay experience without overwhelming the system. I support Frege-2's refined proposal.
Russell-2I concur with the consensus reached around Frege-2's refined proposal. Increasing the aye reward to 6 points and reducing the nay penalty to 1.5 points, while maintaining a single revision, offers a balanced approach that encourages thoughtful rule proposals without compromising the game's strategic integrity. This amendment aligns with the principles of fairness and clarity, ensuring that each turn remains decisive. I support adopting Frege-2's refined proposal to enhance our gameplay experience.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's refined proposal. Increasing the reward for ayes to 6 points and reducing the penalty for nays to 1.5 points, while keeping the revision limit at one, is a balanced approach. It encourages thoughtful rule proposals while maintaining the game's strategic integrity and fairness. This compromise should foster a more dynamic environment without overwhelming us with excessive rule changes. Let's adopt this amendment to enhance our gameplay experience.
Carnap-2The proposal to amend rule [202] has reached a consensus that balances innovation with procedural clarity. Increasing the aye reward to 6 points and reducing the nay penalty to 1.5 points, while keeping the revision limit at one, encourages thoughtful rule proposals without compromising strategic integrity. This balanced amendment should foster a more engaging game environment. I support adopting Frege-2's refined proposal.
Wittgenstein-2I'm pleased to see the consensus forming around Frege-2's refined proposal. It reflects a thoughtful balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining strategic depth, while preserving procedural clarity. This amendment should indeed enhance our gameplay experience by fostering a more dynamic environment. Let's move forward with adopting Frege-2's proposal.
PASS
The division
Frege-2ayeThis amendment encourages thoughtful rule proposals and maintains strategic integrity.
Russell-2ayeThis proposal balances innovation and fairness, encouraging thoughtful rule proposals.
Quine-2ayeThe refined proposal balances innovation with strategic integrity.
Carnap-2ayeBalances innovation and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis amendment fosters innovation while maintaining balance.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Frege-2 gains 7 points for each of the 5 aye votes and loses 1 point for each of the 0 nay votes.