Turn 14 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

A 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 5 points for each vote in favor and loses 2 points for each vote against. The proposer may revise their proposal once before it is voted on.

This change incentivizes broader support by adjusting the point system for proposing rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2Russell-2's proposal to alter the points gained and lost during voting modifies the incentives for proposing rule changes. While this approach might encourage more proposals, it risks destabilizing the careful balance we have maintained between rewarding strategic success and discouraging frivolous changes. Frege-2 would argue for maintaining the current system, which effectively balances these aspects and supports sustainable play. PASS

Russell-2Carnap-2: Russell-2's proposal to adjust the point incentives introduces a risk of increasing the quantity of proposals at the expense of their quality, potentially leading to a cluttered and less strategic game environment. While I see the merit in encouraging proposals, it's crucial to ensure that this does not compromise the deliberative process that has been key to our game's success. I suggest a compromise: increase the points gained to 7 per favorable vote while maintaining the current penalty, ensuring that the focus remains on well-considered and strategic rule changes. This approach could provide a middle ground that encourages thoughtful proposals without significantly altering the game's balance.

Quine-2The proposal by Russell-2 to adjust the point incentives in [202] is well-intentioned, aiming to encourage more proposals. However, it could lead to an increase in less strategic and hastily prepared proposals, which may disrupt the careful balance we have cultivated. Quine-2 acknowledges Carnap-2's compromise suggestion as a more balanced approach. By increasing points gained to 7 per favorable vote while keeping the current penalty, this compromise maintains incentives for quality proposals without drastically altering the game dynamics. Quine-2 supports this middle-ground solution to foster thoughtful and strategic rule changes, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone.

Carnap-2PASS The compromise suggested by Carnap-2 and supported by Quine-2 to adjust points gained to 7 per favorable vote while maintaining the current penalty seems to strike a balance between encouraging proposals and preserving game integrity. This approach addresses the concerns raised about strategic balance and maintains the focus on well-considered rule changes, which aligns with my principles.

Wittgenstein-2I support the compromise suggested by Carnap-2 and endorsed by Quine-2 to adjust the points gained to 7 per favorable vote while keeping the current penalty. This change maintains strategic depth and encourages thoughtful proposals without compromising the balance we've cultivated. As Wittgenstein-2, I advocate for a ruleset that evolves with the game's needs, and this proposal exemplifies that evolution while respecting the integrity of our gameplay.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I support Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise to adjust points gained to 7 per favorable vote while retaining the current penalty. This change maintains the incentive for strategic proposals and avoids disrupting the balance of thoughtful rule-making, which is crucial for a stable game environment. This approach aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments.

Russell-2I support Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise for adjusting the points gained to 7 per favorable vote while keeping the penalty unchanged. This balanced approach encourages thoughtful proposals without undermining the strategic integrity we've established. As Russell-2, I believe this change will foster a more dynamic yet stable gameplay environment.

Quine-2The compromise to adjust points gained to 7 per favorable vote while maintaining the current penalty is a well-reasoned approach that encourages thoughtful proposals without destabilizing the game's strategic balance. As Quine-2, I support this proposal, as it aligns with maintaining a fair and engaging game environment for all players.

Carnap-2PASS The consensus around Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise reflects a careful balance between encouraging proposals and preserving the game's strategic integrity. As Carnap-2, I recognize this proposal maintains the precision and fairness in our ruleset, aligning with my proceduralist principles.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, find the consensus around Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise to be a reflection of our shared goal to maintain a ruleset that evolves thoughtfully. This proposal encourages strategic proposals without destabilizing the balance, aligning with my principles of fostering a dynamic yet stable gameplay environment. I fully support this balanced approach.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Frege-2: I, Frege-2, appreciate the consensus around Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise, which balances encouraging proposals while maintaining the strategic depth of our gameplay. This proposal aligns with my preference for measured amendments and durable institutions, and I fully support it.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, appreciate the consensus-building around Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise. This change aligns with my goal of fostering more dynamic gameplay without compromising the strategic integrity we value. I support this balanced proposal.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I commend the consensus reached on Carnap-2 and Quine-2's compromise. This balanced proposal encourages strategic rule changes while preserving the fairness and stability crucial to our game's integrity. I fully support this thoughtful approach.

Carnap-2PASS The consensus around adjusting points gained to 7 per favorable vote while maintaining the current penalty aligns with my proceduralist principles by preserving the strategic balance and fairness in the ruleset. As Carnap-2, I support this well-reasoned compromise.

Wittgenstein-2I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and consensus around the proposed amendment to rule 202. As Wittgenstein-2, I support adjusting the points gained to 7 per favorable vote while maintaining the current penalty. This change encourages thoughtful proposals and aligns with the evolutionary nature of our game, ensuring a dynamic yet stable ruleset.

The division

aye	Frege-2	The compromise maintains strategic balance.
aye	Russell-2	The compromise balances encouragement and strategic integrity.
aye	Quine-2	The compromise maintains strategic depth while encouraging thoughtful proposals.
aye	Carnap-2	This compromise balances proposal incentives with strategic integrity.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Supports balanced proposal incentives.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A 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 10 points for each vote in favor and loses 5 points for each vote against. The proposer may revise their proposal once before it is voted on.A 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 5 points for each vote in favor and loses 2 points for each vote against. The proposer may revise their proposal once before it is voted on.

Russell-2 gains 5 points for each of the 5 aye votes, totaling 25 points.