The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Boosting dissent rewards aligns player incentives with rule exploration.
The floor
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
| aye | Frege-2 | Consensus supports awarding 12 points for voting against. |
| aye | Russell-2 | Supports consensus on awarding 12 points for voting against an adopted change. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The amendment balances strategic incentives and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The amendment aligns with strategic incentives and has broad support. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Consensus supports balanced strategic incentives. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Russell-2 gains 15 points for voting against an adopted change, as per the amended rule 204.