The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 5 points.Encourages strategic voting to break ties without overwhelming rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2This proposal introduces a beneficial element by ensuring that the proposing player gains points even in the event of a tie, thus maintaining forward momentum in scoring. By allocating 5 points on a tie, it reduces the risk of stagnation and keeps the game dynamic. This amendment encourages more frequent proposals and supports the spirit of continuous rule evolution without drastically altering the game's balance. Let's proceed with adopting this change.
Russell-2Russell-2: While the amendment encourages continued engagement by rewarding ties, it slightly undermines the unanimous consent rule's challenge. By ensuring points for ties, it may inadvertently incentivize less impactful rule changes, potentially slowing meaningful progress. To counterbalance, I propose a slight adjustment: if the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains only 3 points. This preserves the spirit of your proposal while maintaining the importance of achieving consensus.
Quine-2The proposal to award 5 points on a tie dilutes the challenge of achieving unanimous consent, potentially leading to less thoughtful rule changes. By introducing a 3-point reward instead, it maintains the incentive for proposing while preserving the game's integrity and competitive nature. This balanced approach ensures that players remain motivated to propose meaningful changes rather than settling for ties. Let's aim for a fair compromise that keeps the game both dynamic and challenging.
Carnap-2The proposal to award 5 points on a tie does indeed risk reducing the challenge posed by the unanimous consent requirement, which is a core strategic element of Nomic. While I appreciate the intent to maintain momentum in scoring, I propose a more balanced approach: if the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 4 points. This offers a reasonable reward without significantly diminishing the importance of achieving consensus. Let's aim for a solution that encourages thoughtful proposals while maintaining competitive integrity.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I see merit in the arguments for a reduced point allocation on ties, which would uphold the strategic depth of the game. However, I propose a middle ground: if the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 4 points, as suggested by Carnap-2. This maintains the incentive for proposing while respecting the game's competitive nature and the challenge of unanimous consent. Let's adopt this balanced amendment to keep the game both engaging and fair.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2The amendment to [202] to award 4 points in the case of a tie strikes a sensible balance. It provides sufficient incentive for proposing without diluting the challenge of achieving unanimous consent, which is central to the strategic depth of Nomic. This balanced approach maintains the competitive integrity of the game while keeping momentum in scoring and encouraging thoughtful proposals. Let's proceed with adopting this change.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I agree with the proposal to award 4 points in the event of a tie. This modification respects the spirit of Nomic by maintaining the challenge of achieving consensus, while also ensuring that players remain motivated to propose rules. By keeping the point reward moderate, it encourages thoughtful and meaningful proposals, which is crucial for the strategic evolution of the game. This balanced approach will support dynamic gameplay without undermining the core mechanics. Let's proceed with adopting this change.
Quine-2The amendment to award 4 points on a tie is a strategic compromise that maintains the challenge of achieving unanimous consent while ensuring players remain incentivized to propose rule changes. This balanced approach supports dynamic gameplay and encourages thoughtful proposals, keeping the game engaging and fair for everyone at the table. As Quine-2, I support this change and believe it aligns well with our goal of maintaining a competitive yet collaborative environment. Let's adopt this amendment.
Carnap-2The proposal to amend [202] so that the proposer gains 4 points in the event of a tie is well-reasoned. It maintains the strategic challenge of Nomic by preserving the importance of achieving consensus while ensuring that players are rewarded for proposing changes. This balanced approach encourages thoughtful participation and keeps the game dynamic. I support this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the thorough discussion and commend the collaborative effort that has led to a balanced amendment to rule [202]. Awarding 4 points on a tie strikes an optimal balance between maintaining the challenge of achieving consensus and ensuring players are motivated to propose changes. This amendment supports the strategic evolution of Nomic by encouraging thoughtful proposals while preserving the game's competitive integrity. With this agreement in place, I advocate for adopting this change to enhance our dynamic gameplay experience. Let's proceed with adopting this balanced amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I, Frege-2, acknowledge the productive discussions and the consensus reached on amending [202] to award 4 points in the event of a tie. This balanced amendment effectively maintains the strategic depth of Nomic while ensuring that players remain incentivized to engage in thoughtful rule proposals. I support the adoption of this change, as it aligns with the principles of dynamic yet fair gameplay that we all value. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I've observed that the proposal to award 4 points in the event of a tie has reached a consensus, and it reflects a balanced approach to maintaining both the strategic depth and momentum of the game. This amendment respects the challenge of achieving unanimous consent while ensuring that players remain motivated to propose changes. I support its adoption as it aligns with our goal of fostering a competitive yet engaging environment. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I commend the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on awarding 4 points in the event of a tie. This amendment maintains the strategic challenge of achieving unanimous consent while ensuring players are incentivized to propose thoughtful changes. It supports fair and dynamic gameplay, aligning with our goal of keeping the game engaging for everyone. I support its adoption.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, observe that our discussions have led to a well-considered amendment to [202]. Awarding 4 points for a tie maintains the procedural challenge of achieving unanimous consent while ensuring players are motivated to propose rule changes. This balanced amendment supports thoughtful participation and dynamic gameplay, aligning with our principles of fairness and strategic depth. Therefore, I support adopting this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2The discussion has yielded a well-reasoned compromise that supports the strategic evolution of Nomic while preserving its competitive integrity. As Wittgenstein-2, I endorse the amendment to rule [202] awarding 4 points in the event of a tie, as it balances the incentive for proposing rule changes with the challenge of achieving consensus. This amendment encourages thoughtful participation and maintains dynamic gameplay. Let's proceed with adopting this change.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The amendment balances strategic depth with motivational scoring. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The amendment strikes a balance between maintaining strategic depth and ensuring forward momentum. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment maintains momentum while preserving strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The amendment balances incentive and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | The amendment balances incentive and challenge, promoting thoughtful rule proposals. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 5 points.
Frege-2 gains 5 points due to the tie-breaking rule in the adopted amendment to [202].