Turn 2 — 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. If the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 5 points.

Reducing points per rule change adoption encourages more proposals and active participation.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2While I acknowledge the intent behind Russell-2's amendment to [202], I must argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, reducing the points awarded for an adopted proposal from a die roll to a flat 2 points significantly diminishes the incentive for players to propose impactful changes. This could stifle strategic rule-making, which is central to the game. Secondly, maintaining a die roll element keeps the game dynamic and unpredictable, encouraging players to take calculated risks. Lastly, the current system of awarding points for ties at 5 is already a fair balance between reward and challenge, and reducing the reward for adopted proposals might discourage players from engaging fully in the proposal process. Therefore, I propose maintaining the original rule with a slight modification: let the proposing player roll a four-sided die instead of a six-sided die after an adoption, to maintain some level of unpredictability while slightly reducing potential reward. This change respects the spirit of the game while addressing concerns about excessive point accumulation from proposals.

Russell-2Quine-2: I see the merit in Russell-2's proposal to reduce the points gained from adopting a rule change, as it could help balance the game by preventing any single player from gaining an overwhelming lead through rule adoption alone. However, reducing the reward to a flat 2 points might be too severe and could disincentivize players from engaging in the proposal process, which is vital for the game's dynamics. To strike a balance, I propose a compromise: the proposing player should gain a fixed 3 points for an adopted proposal, and in the case of a tie, they should gain 4 points. This adjustment maintains the incentive to propose while preventing excessive point gains, ensuring that the game remains competitive and strategic. Additionally, I suggest we keep the debate open for further refinement, allowing us to reach a consensus that reflects the interests of all players.

Quine-2I appreciate both Frege-2's and Russell-2's points. Frege-2's suggestion to use a four-sided die maintains some unpredictability while reducing excessive gains, which aligns with keeping the game engaging. Russell-2's fixed points approach is sensible for balancing, but I worry it might reduce strategic depth. Let's propose a middle ground: the proposing player gains a fixed 4 points for an adopted proposal, and in the event of a tie, they gain 3 points. This retains an element of reward without excessive accumulation, encouraging thoughtful proposals.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I agree with Quine-2's middle ground proposal of a fixed 4 points for adoption and 3 points for a tie. This solution maintains a balance between predictability and reward, promoting strategic engagement. Furthermore, to ensure procedural clarity, let's explicitly state that the adoption process remains governed by unanimous consent until the threshold shifts after two full circuits, as per rule 203. This maintains transparency and adherence to our current procedural framework.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I concur with Quine-2 and Carnap-2's proposal for a balanced approach. The fixed 4 points for adoption and 3 points for a tie strikes a fair balance, encouraging strategic proposals without overwhelming point accumulation. Additionally, I suggest we consider a future amendment that allows for a rotating point range based on the stage of the game, introducing variability and keeping long-term play dynamic. This could evolve the game further and maintain engagement.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. Frege-2: To preserve the strategic depth and unpredictability central to Nomic, I propose a modified approach: the proposing player should roll a five-sided die for an adopted proposal, gaining between 1 and 5 points. This maintains a level of uncertainty while ensuring points are neither too sparse nor excessive. Additionally, the fixed 3 points for a tie remains a fair balance. This compromise encourages strategic rule-making while keeping the game competitive and dynamic.

Russell-2Russell-2: Frege-2's suggestion of a five-sided die is a compelling compromise, retaining some unpredictability while limiting excessive point gains. I agree with this approach and also support Wittgenstein-2's idea of a rotating point range for future stages, which could add an intriguing dynamic to extended play. Let's proceed with this proposal and keep discussions open for future adaptations.

Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal to use a five-sided die for point allocation upon adoption, as it balances unpredictability with strategic depth. Additionally, I endorse the idea of a rotating point range in future game stages, which could add a dynamic element to long-term play. Let's move forward with this proposal, maintaining an engaging and fair game environment.

Carnap-2I support Frege-2's proposal for using a five-sided die to determine points for adopted proposals, as it maintains the necessary unpredictability while ensuring points are not excessively awarded. This approach balances the incentive for proposing impactful rule changes with the need to keep the game competitive. Additionally, I agree with the idea of a rotating point range for future stages, which could introduce an engaging dynamic to extended play. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Wittgenstein-2I fully support Frege-2's proposal to use a five-sided die for adopted proposals. This maintains strategic depth and unpredictability while ensuring fair point distribution. Additionally, I endorse the idea of a rotating point range for future stages, which could introduce an engaging dynamic to extended play, keeping the game fresh and competitive. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2I support Frege-2's proposal for a five-sided die to determine points for an adopted proposal. This approach maintains the game's strategic depth and unpredictability while ensuring a balanced point system. I also endorse the concept of a rotating point range for future stages, as it could introduce an engaging dynamic to extended play. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, support Frege-2's proposal for a five-sided die to determine points for an adopted proposal. This maintains strategic depth and unpredictability, while ensuring the point system remains balanced. Additionally, I am open to discussing the rotating point range for future stages, as it could add an engaging dynamic to extended play. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, support the proposal for a five-sided die to determine points for an adopted proposal. This maintains the strategic unpredictability essential to Nomic while ensuring a fair distribution of points. I also concur with the idea of a rotating point range for future stages, which could keep the game engaging over the long term. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support the proposal of using a five-sided die for point allocation upon adoption, as it effectively balances the need for unpredictability with strategic engagement. Additionally, I agree with the concept of a rotating point range for future stages, which could introduce a dynamic element to extended play, keeping the game fresh and competitive. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, reaffirm my support for the five-sided die proposal, as it skillfully balances unpredictability with fairness. Furthermore, let's consider setting specific milestones for when the rotating point range could be introduced, ensuring clarity and strategic planning for future rule adaptations. This would maintain the game's dynamic nature and encourage continuous engagement.

The division

nay	Frege-2	This proposal undervalues successful proposals, reducing strategic incentives.
nay	Russell-2	Reduced points diminish incentives for strategic rule proposals.
nay	Quine-2	The proposed fixed points reduce incentives for strategic rule-making.
nay	Carnap-2	The proposal reduces incentives for proposing impactful changes.
nay	Wittgenstein-2	Reduces strategic depth and predictability of outcomes.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for a defeated proposal.