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 proposer may revise their proposal up to five times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 10 points and loses 2 points for each vote against.Increasing aye reward incentivizes strategic proposal crafting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, recognize the potential strategic advantage of allowing more revisions, but I am concerned about the increased complexity and potential for gaming the system. The current three-revision limit helps maintain a balance between strategic depth and fair play. To support a more measured approach, I propose a compromise: allow up to four revisions instead of five, and adjust the point gains to 9 points for each aye vote and 1.5 points for each nay vote. This keeps the system fair while allowing a slight increase in strategic flexibility.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's willingness to negotiate and find a middle ground. However, increasing the revision limit to four still feels restrictive given the strategic depth Nomic allows. To ensure a fair and engaging experience, I propose allowing five revisions but with a more significant point adjustment: 12 points for each aye and 3 points for each nay. This change rewards strategic proposals while ensuring thorough debate. Let's also consider setting a limit on how many consecutive turns a player can propose changes to the same rule, to prevent repeated cycling on a single rule without progression.
Quine-2I appreciate the discussions around increasing the number of revisions and adjusting point gains. However, allowing five revisions could lead to excessive manipulation, making it difficult to reach decisions efficiently. Instead, I propose allowing four revisions, which balances strategic depth with fair play, and adjusting the point gains to 10 points for each aye vote and 2 points for each nay vote. Additionally, to prevent players from cycling on a single rule, let's introduce a rule that a player cannot propose changes to the same rule more than once every three turns. This ensures progress and keeps the game dynamic and fair for everyone.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, support the amendment for four revisions and the point adjustment to 10 points for each aye and 2 points for each nay. This strikes a balance between strategic depth and fair play. Additionally, I agree with Quine-2's proposal to prevent cycling on a single rule by prohibiting repeated proposals on the same rule more than once every three turns, ensuring the game's progress and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Frege-2's compromise to allow four revisions and adjust points to 9 for each aye and 1.5 for each nay. This keeps the system balanced and fair. I also endorse the proposal to prevent cycling by disallowing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns, ensuring the game's progression remains dynamic and equitable.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Pass.
The consensus appears to lean towards allowing four revisions with adjusted points, which aligns with my preference for measured amendments. Introducing a rule to prevent cycling on the same rule every three turns also supports fair play and progression, aligning with my strategy for durable institutions. Thus, I see no need for further revision.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, appreciate the constructive feedback from my fellow players. While I see the merit in Frege-2's and Quine-2's suggestion for four revisions, I propose a compromise to maximize strategic opportunities: allow up to four revisions with a point system of 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay. This adjustment ensures that strategic proposals are rewarded adequately while maintaining the integrity and progression of the game. Additionally, I support the rule preventing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns to ensure fair play and continuous game development. Let's proceed with these changes to enhance both strategic depth and fairness.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, acknowledge the constructive dialogue that has led us to a balanced proposal. Allowing four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay is a fair compromise that promotes strategic depth while maintaining game integrity. Additionally, I fully support the rule preventing repeated changes to the same rule within three turns to ensure fair play and continuous progression. Let's proceed with these changes to enhance both strategic opportunities and fairness in the game. PASS
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal aligns with my principles, balancing strategic depth with fair play. The four-revision limit, with adjusted point gains, maintains procedural clarity and prevents manipulation. The additional rule against cycling on the same rule supports continuous game progression.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, am content with the current consensus towards allowing four revisions and the adjusted point gains. This proposal maintains a balance between strategic depth and fair play, and the additional rule to prevent cycling on the same rule within three turns ensures the game's dynamic progression. I support this balanced approach, and I see no need for further changes.
PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS
The consensus on allowing four revisions, with an adjusted point system of 11 for ayes and 2.5 for nays, alongside the cycling prevention rule, aligns with my strategic preference for durable, fair institutions. This proposal maintains balance and encourages thoughtful, strategic rule changes without excessive manipulation.
Russell-2I support the proposal for four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, along with the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This approach balances strategic flexibility with fair play, ensuring that the game progresses smoothly without allowing for rule manipulation. The consensus reached supports a fair and dynamic game environment, and I see no need for further adjustments. PASS
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support the finalized proposal for allowing four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, alongside the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This balanced approach promotes strategic depth while maintaining the integrity and fairness of the game, ensuring that all players have equitable opportunities to engage and succeed. PASS
Carnap-2PASS
The proposal achieves a fair balance between strategic depth and procedural clarity by allowing four revisions and adjusting the point system, alongside preventing cycling on the same rule within three turns. It aligns with my principles of promoting fair play and maintaining durable institutions, so no further revision is necessary.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the proposal for four revisions with 11 points for each aye and 2.5 points for each nay, along with the rule against cycling on the same rule within three turns. This proposal maintains a balance between strategic flexibility and fair play, ensuring that the game progresses smoothly without allowing for excessive manipulation. PASS
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | It increases manipulation risks by allowing five revisions. |
| nay | Russell-2 | Russell-2's proposal exceeds the agreed four revisions limit. |
| nay | Quine-2 | The proposal allows excessive revisions and point adjustments, risking manipulation. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The proposal increases revision limits excessively and disrupts balanced point gains. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal balances strategic depth and fairness. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on defeat, so no score change occurs.