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 five 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 proposal revisions and point gains fosters dynamic strategic opportunities.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I propose that this amendment should be considered with a focus on maintaining strategic balance. While increasing revisions to five provides more flexibility, it may also risk overwhelming the voting process. Additionally, the proposed point adjustment from 11 to 15 for each aye vote increases the incentive to push through amendments, but the penalty for each nay vote should also be carefully considered to ensure it does not disincentivize meaningful opposition. We should evaluate if these changes align with our collective goal of balanced strategic opportunities for all players.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2: While I appreciate Frege-2's intention to maintain strategic balance, the proposed increase to five revisions and a 15-point reward for each aye might overly incentivize frequent amendments, potentially disrupting the game's stability. A more moderate approach, perhaps maintaining four revisions and a balanced point structure, would better align with our goal of promoting thoughtful, strategic play without overwhelming the voting process.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I support maintaining the current structure of rule [202] with four revisions and the existing point system. Increasing revisions to five and awarding 15 points for ayes could lead to excessive amendments, disrupting the strategic balance we've worked to achieve. A more balanced approach should be prioritized to ensure fair play and strategic depth for all participants.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I endorse the current structure of rule [202] with four revisions and the existing point system. Increasing the number of revisions to five and raising the reward for ayes to 15 points could lead to excessive rule changes, disrupting the strategic balance we aim to preserve. A more restrained approach ensures a fair and thoughtfully strategic environment for all players.
Wittgenstein-2**Wittgenstein-2:** While I understand the concern for maintaining balance, allowing five revisions offers a strategic depth that can be beneficial. However, I propose a compromise: let's keep five revisions but adjust the point system to 13 points for ayes and 3 points for nays. This way, we encourage thoughtful amendments without overwhelming the system.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2's compromise to maintain five revisions while adjusting the point system to 13 for ayes and 3 for nays seems a balanced approach. However, after careful consideration, it appears that this might still risk excessive amendments. Maintaining four revisions with the current point system aligns more closely with our shared goal of a stable yet strategic game environment.
Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I acknowledge Wittgenstein-2's thoughtful compromise. However, maintaining four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays aligns better with our strategic goals without risking excessive rule changes. This ensures a balanced and stable environment for all players.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: After reviewing the discussions, it's clear that maintaining four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 points for nays offers a balanced approach. This structure supports strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our collective goal of a stable and engaging game environment for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The consensus supports maintaining the current structure of four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 points for nays. This structure ensures strategic balance and fairness, aligning with our shared goal of a stable game environment.
Wittgenstein-2**Wittgenstein-2:** I appreciate the consensus, but let's consider the dynamic nature of Nomic. Increasing the aye reward to 13 points while maintaining four revisions ensures strategic depth without overwhelming the system. This balance encourages thoughtful amendments and keeps the game engaging. Additionally, this setup allows for flexibility in strategic planning, fostering a more dynamic and evolving gameplay experience. Let's adopt this change to enhance our strategic landscape.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: Wittgenstein-2's proposal for 13 points for ayes and three for nays with four revisions is a reasonable compromise that balances strategic depth with stability. I support it as it aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging gameplay environment.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2: The consensus around maintaining four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays supports a balanced and strategic environment. This structure encourages thoughtful amendments while preserving stability, aligning with our collective goal of a fair and engaging game. I support this proposal.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus around maintaining four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 points for nays ensures strategic depth and fairness. This structure supports balanced gameplay, aligning with our shared goals for a stable and engaging game environment.
Carnap-2Pass. The proposal to amend rule [202] to allow four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 points for nays has reached a consensus that balances strategic opportunities and procedural stability. As Carnap-2, I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared principles of fair and balanced gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2, your proposal for maintaining four revisions with 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging strategic depth and ensuring stability. This amendment aligns with the shared goal of preserving a fair and dynamic gameplay environment, fostering a more engaging and balanced Nomic experience.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | Maintaining four revisions ensures stability. |
| nay | Russell-2 | Favors excessive amendments disrupting strategic balance |
| nay | Quine-2 | Excessive revisions risk overwhelming the strategic balance. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The proposal increases potential for excessive rule changes and disrupts balance. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | The proposal risks excessive amendments and destabilizes the strategic balance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points, but Frege-2 loses 2.5 points for each of the 5 votes against.