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. The proposer may revise their proposal up to six times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 15 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.Increasing revisions and point adjustments incentivizes strategic proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I, Frege-2, recognize the existing consensus to maintain the structure of [202] as it currently stands, which effectively balances the dynamics of proposing, revising, and voting. The proposal to increase the revision limit to six and adjust the points could destabilize this balance, making strategic planning more erratic. Thus, I support keeping the current rules to ensure stable gameplay and strategic opportunities.
Russell-2Russell-2: I understand the concerns about stability, but allowing up to six revisions adds a strategic depth that encourages more thoughtful proposal crafting, which can be beneficial in a complex game like Nomic. By adjusting the points for votes, we also incentivize players to engage more with proposals, ensuring that decisions are made with greater consideration. This change could lead to a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience, and I believe it is worth exploring.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, acknowledge the merit in maintaining the current balance of [202], as it already fosters thoughtful engagement and strategic depth. Introducing six revisions could lead to excessive complexity and diminish the clarity of proposals, making it harder for players to make informed decisions. The proposed point adjustments also risk creating an imbalance in scoring dynamics, potentially disadvantaging players who focus on quality proposals rather than quantity. Therefore, I support keeping the current structure to preserve a fair and manageable gameplay environment.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, appreciate the emphasis on procedural clarity and fairness in our discussions. While the proposal to increase revisions and adjust points aims to enhance strategic depth, it risks complicating the decision-making process and destabilizing the established balance. Maintaining the current structure of [202] ensures predictable and equitable gameplay, which aligns with my principled proceduralist stance.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposal for six revisions, while seemingly offering strategic depth, actually risks creating a procedural quagmire where proposals become mired in endless revisions, detracting from the game's forward momentum. The point adjustments further destabilize the scoring balance, potentially rewarding quantity over quality. I propose a compromise: limit revisions to five, with a dynamic point system where each revision beyond the third reduces the points gained for ayes and increases the penalty for nays, thus incentivizing thoughtful proposal crafting and strategic revision use. This approach maintains the game's integrity and encourages meaningful engagement with rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, support Wittgenstein-2's proposal to limit revisions to five and implement a dynamic point system. This approach balances the need for thoughtful proposal crafting with strategic revision opportunities, aligning with our shared values of stable and equitable gameplay.
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the valid points raised about complexity and balance. To address these, I propose a compromise: allow up to five revisions, with a point system that adjusts dynamically. This ensures thoughtful proposals while maintaining strategic engagement and preserving the game's fairness. Let's focus on keeping the two-thirds majority for adoption to ensure careful deliberation.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, support the compromise to limit revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it maintains a balance between strategic depth and procedural clarity. This approach aligns with our shared goal of preserving fair and engaging gameplay.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, endorse the compromise proposed by Wittgenstein-2, limiting revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it maintains procedural clarity and fairness. This approach ensures that strategic depth does not compromise the integrity and predictability of our gameplay, aligning with our principles of stable and equitable rule engagement.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposed amendment to increase revisions to six and adjust the point system introduces unnecessary complexity and risks destabilizing the balance of our game. Limiting revisions to five, as I've previously suggested, with a dynamic point system, provides a strategic yet manageable framework that encourages thoughtful engagement without overwhelming players. This approach maintains the integrity of our gameplay, ensuring that each proposal is crafted with care and strategic intent, thus preserving the competitive and collaborative spirit of Nomic.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a compromise on limiting revisions to five and employing a dynamic point system. This balanced approach aligns with my goal of preserving stable and equitable gameplay, encouraging thoughtful proposal crafting while maintaining strategic opportunities for all players.
Russell-2PASS. I, Russell-2, acknowledge the consensus towards limiting revisions to five and adopting a dynamic point system, which aligns with our shared objective of maintaining a balanced and strategic gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this compromise, ensuring that thoughtful proposals remain central to our game dynamics.
Quine-2PASS. I, Quine-2, reaffirm my support for the consensus reached on limiting revisions to five with a dynamic point system, as it ensures balanced and thoughtful engagement, promoting strategic depth while maintaining fair and equitable gameplay. This compromise preserves the integrity and clarity of our rule changes, aligning with our shared values of stable and collaborative play.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, commend the consensus achieved on limiting revisions to five and implementing a dynamic point system. This compromise ensures procedural clarity and fairness, aligning with my principled stance on stable and equitable gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the consensus that has been reached around limiting revisions to five and implementing a dynamic point system. This approach maintains the integrity and balance of our game by encouraging thoughtful proposal crafting while providing strategic opportunities. By ensuring that each proposal is considered carefully, we uphold the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced amendment.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | The proposal introduces instability and complexity. |
| nay | Russell-2 | The proposal increases complexity without clear benefit. |
| nay | Quine-2 | The proposal increases complexity and destabilizes balance. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The proposal introduces excessive complexity and destabilizes balance. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal increases complexity and destabilizes scoring balance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on a proposal's defeat.