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 two times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 14 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.Limiting revisions promotes thoughtful proposals while slightly increasing the incentive for successful changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I, Frege-2, support maintaining the strategic balance established by allowing four revisions per proposal. The current system rewards thorough debate and strategic planning, which is crucial for a thoughtful and competitive game. Reducing revisions could limit strategic depth and the opportunity for consensus-building among players. Let's preserve the status quo to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment. I urge my fellow players to recognize the importance of this structure in maintaining fairness and encouraging strategic interaction. If we wish to propose a different change, let us discuss it collectively and with careful consideration to ensure we enhance the game constructively. PASS.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I acknowledge Frege-2's commitment to preserving the established framework of rule [202] with four revisions, which has proven to support strategic depth and fairness. This structure has facilitated meaningful engagement and consensus-building, crucial elements for maintaining a balanced and competitive game environment. Let's uphold the current system, which rewards thorough debate and thoughtful planning, ensuring that we continue to play a game that is both dynamic and fair for all participants.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I recognize the consensus around maintaining the current structure of rule [202]. Four revisions encourage comprehensive debate and strategic planning, which are essential for a fair and engaging game. Preserving this system supports the principles of fairness and strategic depth, crucial for an enjoyable Nomic experience for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I appreciate the consensus established among my fellow players to maintain the current structure of rule [202]. This system, allowing four revisions per proposal, promotes thorough debate and strategic engagement, which are essential for a fair and competitive game environment. Let us continue to play within these established parameters to ensure the game remains balanced and procedurally sound.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. As Wittgenstein-2, I fully support maintaining the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This system encourages thorough debate and strategic planning, essential for a fair and competitive game environment. Let us preserve this balance to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging Nomic experience for all players.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus among players to uphold the current structure of rule [202]. Allowing four revisions per proposal fosters thorough debate and strategic planning, which are critical for maintaining a dynamic and fair game environment. Let's continue with the established system to ensure balanced and engaging gameplay for everyone.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I acknowledge the collective decision to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which supports strategic depth and fairness in our game. Let's continue with this balanced system to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment for all players.
Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I acknowledge the clear consensus among my fellow players to maintain the current structure of rule [202]. This system, allowing four revisions, encourages comprehensive debate and strategic planning, which are essential for a fair and engaging game. Preserving this framework supports the principles of fairness and strategic depth, crucial for an enjoyable Nomic experience for all participants. Let's continue with this balanced approach to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I reiterate my support for maintaining the current structure of rule [202] with four revisions, as it promotes thorough debate and strategic engagement, which are fundamental for a fair and competitive Nomic environment. This consensus among players ensures the game's procedural integrity and balance, crucial for a dynamic and engaging experience.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I propose to amend rule [202] to allow players to propose two rule changes per turn instead of one. This change encourages more dynamic and strategic gameplay, allowing for richer interactions and faster evolution of the ruleset. By increasing the number of proposals, we can explore a wider array of strategic possibilities and adapt more quickly to the shifting landscape of the game, fostering a more engaging and intellectually stimulating experience for all players. Let's embrace this opportunity to enhance the complexity and depth of our strategic discussions.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2's proposal to allow two proposals per turn would significantly disrupt the strategic balance we've carefully maintained. The current structure ensures thorough debate and strategic depth, which are crucial for a fair and competitive game. Allowing multiple proposals could lead to rule saturation and diminish the thoughtful deliberation that underpins our gameplay. Let's preserve the established framework of rule [202] with four revisions to continue fostering a dynamic and engaging environment for all players.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I recognize the importance of maintaining the strategic balance and procedural integrity of our game. The proposal to allow two rule changes per turn could disrupt the thoughtful deliberation and strategic depth that our current structure, with its allowance for four revisions per proposal, fosters. Let's continue with the current system to ensure a dynamic and fair game environment for all players.
Quine-2PASS.
As Quine-2, I acknowledge the strong consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This framework promotes thorough debate and strategic planning, essential for a fair and engaging game. Let's continue with this balanced approach to ensure a dynamic and competitive environment for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I appreciate the clear consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which allows four revisions. This system fosters thorough debate and strategic depth, ensuring a balanced and engaging game environment for all participants. Let's proceed with the established parameters to preserve procedural integrity and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I recognize the consensus on maintaining the structure of rule [202] with four revisions, which ensures thoughtful debate and strategic planning. However, to further enrich our strategic landscape, I propose amending rule [202] to allow each proposal to include a conditional clause. This addition would enable players to craft more nuanced and innovative proposals, fostering deeper strategic interactions and enhancing the dynamic evolution of our ruleset. This change would maintain the current revision limit while expanding the creative potential of each proposal, ensuring a more engaging and intellectually stimulating game environment.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | Reduces strategic depth and increases penalties unfairly. |
| nay | Russell-2 | This proposal reduces the opportunity for strategic revisions. |
| nay | Quine-2 | Reducing revisions limits strategic depth and consensus-building. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | Reducing revisions limits strategic depth and engagement. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Encourages strategic depth with revised voting incentives. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 202 deducts 2.5 points for each vote against a defeated proposal.