Turn 17 — 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 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.

Enhances strategic depth by incentivizing consensus and allowing more flexibility in proposal revisions.

The floor

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

aye	Frege-2	This amendment encourages thoughtful rule proposals and maintains strategic integrity.
aye	Russell-2	This proposal balances innovation and fairness, encouraging thoughtful rule proposals.
aye	Quine-2	The refined proposal balances innovation with strategic integrity.
aye	Carnap-2	Balances innovation and fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This amendment fosters innovation while maintaining balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 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, 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.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 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.

Frege-2 gains 7 points for each of the 5 aye votes and loses 1 point for each of the 0 nay votes.