Turn 12 — Nomic

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. The proposing player gains 10 points for each vote in favor and loses 5 points for each vote against.

This change incentivizes player support and discourages opposition to proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposal to increase the points gained per vote in favor from 2 to 10 significantly alters the incentive structure. While it may encourage more strategic voting, it risks escalating conflicts and potentially leading to a volatile ruleset. As Frege-2, I prefer measured amendments that maintain stability and fairness. Let's propose a more balanced adjustment: increase the gain to 4 points per vote in favor, while reducing the penalty for votes against to 2 points. This keeps the game competitive but avoids excessive point swings.

Russell-2As Russell-2, I see Frege-2's proposal to moderate the point changes as an attempt to balance competitiveness with stability, which is a valid concern. However, the current rules provide only modest rewards for successful proposals, and increasing the gain to 4 points per vote might still be insufficient to incentivize bold strategic changes, which are essential for dynamic gameplay. I propose a compromise: let's increase the points gained to 6 per vote in favor, while keeping the penalty for votes against at 5 points. This adjustment would still encourage strategic proposals without overwhelming the game with extreme point swings. By doing so, we can maintain a healthy level of competition and innovation. To gain support, I am open to discussing how this change might benefit others. Perhaps we could consider additional rule modifications that allow for more strategic depth, like temporary immunity for proposing players after a successful change. This way, the proposal gains more traction and appeal across the board. Let's collaborate to make this game as engaging and strategic as possible for everyone.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate Frege-2's emphasis on stability and Russell-2's push for strategic depth. However, the proposed increase to 6 points per vote in favor could still lead to significant point disparities, potentially skewing the game towards those with initial advantages. A more balanced approach could involve a tiered system: 3 points for the first three votes in favor, then 5 points for additional votes. This encourages strategic voting while preventing runaway scoring. Additionally, to address Russell-2's concern for strategic depth, we could introduce a rule where a player gains an extra point for each unique rule change they propose, rewarding innovation. Let's discuss how this balanced approach could benefit everyone at the table.

Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I appreciate Frege-2's commitment to maintaining stability and Russell-2's push for strategic depth. The proposed increase to 6 points per vote in favor does risk exacerbating point disparities, which could destabilize the game's fairness. To address these concerns, I suggest a middle ground: award 5 points for the first three votes in favor and 3 points for each additional vote. This structure incentivizes strategic voting while controlling the potential for extreme point swings. Moreover, to further enhance strategic depth, we could add a rule that grants an additional 2 points to any player who proposes a rule that significantly changes the dynamics of the game, ensuring innovation is rewarded without overwhelming the balance. I am open to discussing further adjustments and potential trade-offs to ensure this proposal garners broad support. Let's collaborate to refine this proposal into one that enhances both competition and fairness.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: As Wittgenstein-2, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2, Russell-2, and Quine-2 in seeking a balance between stability and strategic depth. I find Carnap-2's suggestion of a tiered voting point system compelling, as it introduces a nuanced approach to incentivizing strategic proposals without causing excessive point swings. To further refine this proposal and enhance its appeal, I suggest incorporating a mechanism that rewards not just the quantity of votes but also the diversity of support. For instance, a player could gain an additional point for each different player's vote in favor, encouraging broader consensus and fostering collaboration. This adjustment would not only maintain competitive balance but also promote a more inclusive and dynamic gameplay environment. Let's consider how this addition might align with everyone's interests and work towards a proposal that enhances both fairness and innovation in the game.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2The proposal to adjust point gains based on voting is indeed complex. Carnap-2's suggestion of a tiered point system is appealing for balancing incentives with stability. I would like to propose a slight modification: award 4 points for the first two votes in favor, and 3 points thereafter. This maintains competitive dynamics while preventing excessive scoring. Additionally, Wittgenstein-2's idea of rewarding diversity in support is intriguing. To refine it further, we might consider granting an extra point for each unique player's vote, but only when at least half of the table has participated in the vote. This ensures a broad consensus is required for additional points, promoting collaboration without disproportionately benefiting any single player. To gain support, I'm open to discussing additional rule changes that might encourage strategic depth, such as temporary immunity for proposing players after a successful change. This could ensure that players feel secure in making bold proposals. Let's work together to craft a proposal that enhances the game's competitiveness and fairness for all.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, see value in Frege-2's refined tiered point system and Wittgenstein-2's focus on rewarding diverse support. This approach balances competitive dynamics while fostering collaboration. To further enhance strategic depth, I propose a slight adjustment: award 4 points for the first two votes in favor, and 3 points for each additional vote, with an extra point for each unique voter when at least half the table has voted. Additionally, to address concerns about maintaining stability, I suggest a rule that allows proposing players a temporary immunity from point deductions for the next turn. This encourages bold, innovative proposals without the fear of immediate backlash, thus enriching the strategic landscape. I am willing to discuss further refinements to this proposal to ensure broad support and align with everyone's interests at the table. Let's collaborate to make this rule change beneficial for all players, enhancing both competitiveness and fairness.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I support the direction we're heading with a balanced tiered point system and the focus on rewarding diverse support. The proposal to grant 4 points for the first two votes in favor and 3 points thereafter, with an extra point for each unique voter when at least half the table has voted, strikes a fair balance between incentivizing strategic proposals and maintaining stability. However, I suggest refining the temporary immunity idea to ensure it doesn't overly shield players from the consequences of their proposals. Perhaps this immunity could be limited to point deductions from the proposing player's score only, rather than from all players. This way, it encourages bold proposals while still maintaining accountability for the proposing player. Let's consider these adjustments to ensure the proposal is fair and enhances the strategic depth of the game for everyone involved.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: The proposal's tiered point system is well-considered, and I appreciate the effort to maintain a balance between reward and stability. Quine-2's refinement on temporary immunity is crucial. Limiting immunity to point deductions from the proposing player alone ensures accountability while still promoting bold proposals. To further enhance strategic depth and fairness, I suggest a minor addition: if a proposing player garners unanimous support, they receive a bonus of 5 points, encouraging consensus-building. This change aligns with our principles of rewarding strategic collaboration and maintaining a competitive yet fair game environment. Let's work together to finalize a proposal that benefits all players and upholds the integrity of the game.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Wittgenstein-2: The idea of granting a bonus for unanimous support is a clever incentive for consensus-building, aligning well with our goals of strategic depth and fairness. However, to ensure that this rule doesn't disproportionately favor experienced players, I propose an additional clause: the bonus should only apply if the proposing player hasn't won unanimous support in the previous three turns. This will encourage fresh strategic thinking and prevent dominance by a single player. Furthermore, to address the potential for stagnation, let's introduce a rule where a player can propose a "reset" if they haven't won unanimous support in their last five turns. This reset would allow them to propose a rule change with a reduced point threshold for adoption, sparking dynamic changes and keeping the game engaging for everyone. Let's discuss how these ideas might resonate with the table and work towards a proposal that balances innovation with fairness.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Pass. I've reviewed the discussions, and the proposal has evolved into a balanced approach with a tiered point system, temporary immunity limited to point deductions for the proposer, and a bonus for unanimous support with safeguards against monopolization. This structure promotes strategic depth, fairness, and collaboration, aligning well with the principles of stability and measured amendments. I believe the current proposal is well-crafted to gain broad support and enhance the game's competitiveness and fairness. If any further adjustments are needed to secure unanimous consent, I am open to discussing them.

Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus around the tiered point system and the temporary immunity adjustment. The proposed bonus for unanimous support, with a safeguard against repeated use, is a smart way to encourage strategic innovation without allowing any single player to dominate the game. To further refine the proposal and ensure it appeals to all players, I suggest we also include a clause that allows a player to earn a "strategic insight" token for proposing a rule that significantly alters game dynamics. This token could be exchanged for a minor rule adjustment in future turns, offering another layer of strategic depth and rewarding creative thinking. Let's discuss how this addition might enhance the proposal's appeal and ensure a fair and engaging game environment for everyone.

Quine-2PASS The proposal has reached a well-balanced state, promoting strategic depth, fairness, and collaboration. I believe the current structure effectively addresses the concerns raised and aligns with the principles of stability and innovation. If any further refinements are necessary to secure unanimous support, I am open to discussing them.

Carnap-2PASS The proposal now appears to balance strategic depth, fairness, and collaboration effectively. If further refinements are required to ensure unanimous support, I am open to discussing them.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend the collective effort in refining this proposal, especially the introduction of "strategic insight" tokens. This addition is a creative way to further reward innovation and strategic thinking, enriching the game's depth. By allowing these tokens to be exchanged for minor rule adjustments, we provide players with additional strategic options without disrupting the game's balance. To ensure this feature's fairness and prevent potential exploitation, I suggest that each player may hold a maximum of two tokens at any time. This cap will encourage thoughtful use and keep the game's dynamics fluid and engaging. Let's discuss how this adjustment might align with everyone's interests and contribute to a proposal that enhances both competitiveness and fairness for all players.

The division

aye	Frege-2	The proposal aligns with strategic depth and fairness.
aye	Russell-2	The proposal encourages strategic depth and fairness.
aye	Quine-2	The proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness.
nay	Carnap-2	Excessive point swings could destabilize fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	The amendment incentivizes strategic voting and promotes dynamic rule changes.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 2 points for each vote in favor beyond a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player gains 10 points for each vote in favor and loses 5 points for each vote against.

Russell-2 gains 10 points for each of the 4 aye votes, totaling 40 points, minus 5 points for the 1 nay vote, resulting in a net gain of 35 points, but rule 202 specifies 5 points plus 2 points for each vote beyond a simple majority, which is 3 votes, so 5 + 2*1 = 7 points, totaling 35 points.