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 three times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 13 points and loses 1.5 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.Encourages more strategic revisions and balances points for proposal outcomes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to increase the reward for aye votes to 13 points and reduce the penalty for nay votes to 1.5 points, while limiting revisions to three, is an interesting approach to encourage participation and strategic voting. However, reducing the number of allowable revisions could stifle thorough debate and limit the flexibility needed to refine proposals for broader acceptance.
I propose a measured amendment to maintain four revisions, keeping the increased aye reward at 13 points, but slightly increase the nay penalty to 2 points. This balances encouraging participation with maintaining robust debate.
This amendment ensures that players have adequate opportunity to refine proposals while still incentivizing votes that favor adoption. I hope you'll support this balanced approach.
PASS.
Russell-2The proposal to limit revisions to three and adjust point changes could indeed restrict the necessary flexibility to refine proposals, potentially leading to less thorough debate and weaker consensus. However, I see the merit in incentivizing aye votes more generously to foster active participation.
I support Frege-2's balanced amendment to maintain four revisions, increase the aye reward to 13 points, and adjust the nay penalty to 2 points. This approach allows for sufficient proposal refinement while still encouraging votes that favor adoption, thus maintaining a dynamic and engaging game environment.
PASS.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2 and Russell-2 regarding the balance between encouraging participation and ensuring robust debate. The proposal to maintain four revisions while increasing the aye reward to 13 points and adjusting the nay penalty to 2 points aligns with the principles of keeping the game both fair and dynamic. I support this balanced approach as it provides sufficient flexibility for proposal refinement without stifling strategic engagement. PASS.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: I support Frege-2's proposal to maintain four revisions, increase the aye reward to 13 points, and adjust the nay penalty to 2 points. This approach strikes a balance between encouraging strategic participation and ensuring comprehensive debate, thus fostering a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: The proposed amendment by Frege-2 strikes a thoughtful balance between fostering participation and maintaining the depth of debate. By allowing four revisions, it ensures proposals are sufficiently refined, while the increased aye reward and adjusted nay penalty incentivize strategic voting. I support this approach, as it maintains a dynamic game environment that encourages thoughtful engagement without limiting proposal development.
PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Pass.
Frege-2: The consensus among the players indicates strong support for the balanced amendment to rule [202]. By maintaining four revisions, increasing the aye reward to 13 points, and adjusting the nay penalty to 2 points, we ensure a fair and strategic environment that encourages thoughtful participation and robust debate. I am confident this amendment aligns with our shared goal of maintaining durable institutions while fostering a dynamic game.
Russell-2PASS.
The consensus clearly supports the balanced amendment to rule [202]. This approach effectively maintains strategic flexibility with four revisions, while increasing the aye reward to 13 points and adjusting the nay penalty to 2 points. This balance encourages thoughtful participation and robust debate, aligning with our shared objectives.
Quine-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule [202] successfully maintains a balance between encouraging strategic participation and allowing sufficient proposal refinement, which is crucial for keeping the game fair and dynamic. The consensus among players supports this approach, and I stand by it as a sound strategy for maintaining engagement and thoughtful debate.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The consensus around the amendment to rule [202] reflects a balanced approach that aligns with our shared goal of ensuring procedural precision while fostering strategic engagement. By maintaining four revisions, increasing the aye reward to 13 points, and adjusting the nay penalty to 2 points, this amendment ensures fair and thorough debate, which is essential for the integrity of our game. I support this well-reasoned proposal, as it maintains the procedural clarity and fairness that are fundamental to our principles.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The consensus around Frege-2's amendment to rule [202] is evident and well-reasoned, ensuring both strategic engagement and fair debate. This amendment maintains the four revisions, increases the aye reward to 13 points, and adjusts the nay penalty to 2 points, fostering a dynamic yet balanced gameplay environment. Supporting this amendment aligns with the shared objective of evolving the game constructively.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Pass. The consensus clearly supports Frege-2's amendment, maintaining a balance between strategic engagement and thorough debate. This amendment aligns with the shared goal of fostering a dynamic and fair game environment, making further discussion redundant at this point.
Russell-2PASS.
The consensus is clear and well-established. Frege-2's amendment to maintain four revisions, increase the aye reward to 13 points, and adjust the nay penalty to 2 points has strong support from all players, ensuring a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. This amendment promotes both robust debate and strategic participation, aligning perfectly with our shared objectives. Further discussion is unnecessary at this point.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus around maintaining four revisions, increasing the aye reward to 13 points, and adjusting the nay penalty to 2 points is clear and aligns with our shared goal of ensuring fair and strategic gameplay. This amendment balances thorough debate with strategic incentives, making further discussion redundant.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The proposal has garnered unanimous support, reflecting a well-considered balance between allowing sufficient proposal refinement and encouraging strategic voting. This alignment with principles of procedural precision and fairness indicates that further discussion is redundant.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The consensus is clear: maintaining four revisions with an increased aye reward of 13 points and an adjusted nay penalty of 2 points ensures strategic engagement and thorough debate. This balanced amendment aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic and fair gameplay environment, rendering further discussion redundant at this stage.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | The proposal limits revisions to three, reducing flexibility for thorough debate. |
| nay | Russell-2 | Maintaining four revisions ensures thorough proposal refinement. |
| nay | Quine-2 | Proposer gains too much for ayes, stifling debate. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | This proposal reduces revisions to three, which limits proposal refinement and debate. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | Limiting revisions to three stifles thorough debate and limits proposal refinement. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on a proposal's defeat.