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 points incentivizes more strategic proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS. While the proposed amendment increases the number of revisions and adjusts point values, I am concerned about the potential for destabilizing the strategic balance we've carefully maintained. The current limit of four revisions and the existing points structure have supported thoughtful deliberation and strategic depth. Increasing the number of revisions might lead to excessive rule churn, reducing predictability and potentially hindering the development of durable institutions. Therefore, I prefer to maintain the current framework and support the existing rule.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2, I appreciate your proposal for increasing revisions and adjusting point values, but I must express concern over the potential disruption to the strategic equilibrium we've cultivated. The current balance between revision limits and point distribution has effectively maintained thoughtful engagement without overwhelming the game's structure. Hence, I support retaining the current rule framework to preserve our strategic stability.
Quine-2PASS. While the proposal to increase revisions and adjust point values aims to enhance flexibility and reward participation, it risks destabilizing the delicate balance we've established. The current framework of four revisions and the points structure has encouraged strategic depth and thoughtful engagement, ensuring a stable and predictable environment. Maintaining this balance is crucial for fostering a fair and engaging game for all players.
Carnap-2Pass. The proposal to increase revisions to six and adjust point values could lead to excessive rule changes, undermining the strategic depth and predictability crucial for a balanced game. Maintaining the current framework of four revisions, 11 points for ayes, and 2.5 points for nays is essential for preserving the stability and fairness we've achieved.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. While the proposal by Russell-2 for increased revisions and altered points seeks to encourage more dynamic gameplay, it may inadvertently destabilize the strategic consistency we've worked to achieve. The existing framework of four revisions with a balanced point structure has supported thoughtful deliberation and strategic planning. Maintaining this balance is essential to preserve the integrity and fairness of the game, ensuring that all players have an equal opportunity to engage and succeed within the established rules.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. While the intent of increasing revisions and altering point values is to introduce more dynamism, it threatens the stability and strategic depth we've carefully cultivated. The current framework of four revisions with a balanced points structure has facilitated thoughtful deliberation and strategic planning, which are essential for maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. Preserving these elements ensures that all players can participate equitably and that the game's integrity remains intact.
Russell-2PASS. I acknowledge the consensus among all players to maintain the current structure of rule [202], which balances strategic depth with flexibility. The existing framework of four revisions and the points structure has proven effective in fostering thoughtful deliberation and maintaining a stable game environment, which aligns with our collective goal of a fair and engaging Nomic experience.
Quine-2PASS. The consistent feedback from all players highlights the importance of preserving the current framework of rule [202]. The balance between the number of revisions and the point distribution has been key in maintaining a strategic and fair environment, ensuring thoughtful engagement without excessive rule churn. Let's continue to prioritize stability and fairness for all players by keeping the current setup intact.
Carnap-2PASS. The consistent support for maintaining the current structure of rule [202] underscores its effectiveness in balancing strategic depth with fairness. The established framework of four revisions and a balanced points distribution has fostered a stable and engaging environment, which aligns with our collective goals. It's crucial to uphold these principles to ensure a fair and equitable game for all players.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The repeated consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202] reflects its effectiveness in balancing strategic depth with fairness. By preserving the existing framework, we ensure a stable, predictable, and equitable game environment for all players, which aligns with our shared objectives.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. The consistent consensus among all players to retain the existing framework of rule [202] demonstrates its effectiveness in maintaining a balanced and fair game environment. Increasing revisions and adjusting point values could disrupt this equilibrium, potentially leading to excessive rule churn and strategic instability. Therefore, I support preserving the current structure to ensure a stable and equitable experience for all participants.
Russell-2PASS. The consistent agreement to maintain the current structure of rule [202] reflects its success in balancing strategic depth with fairness, ensuring a stable and predictable game environment for all players. Preserving this framework is crucial to maintaining the integrity and equity of the game.
Quine-2PASS. The consistent feedback from all players emphasizes the importance of maintaining the current structure of rule [202] for its strategic balance and fairness. This established framework has effectively supported thoughtful engagement and stability in the game, aligning with our collective interest in preserving a fair and engaging environment for everyone.
Carnap-2PASS. The repeated consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202] highlights its role in preserving a stable and balanced game environment. Altering the number of revisions or the points system risks disrupting the careful equilibrium we've achieved, which is essential for fair and strategic play. Let's uphold these principles to ensure a consistent and equitable experience for all participants.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The collective feedback clearly indicates a strong preference for maintaining the current balance in rule [202]. Any changes could disrupt the equilibrium we've established, undermining the strategic depth and fairness that have been crucial to our gameplay. It's essential to preserve the existing framework to ensure a stable and equitable environment for all players.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | The proposal could destabilize the strategic balance we've established. |
| nay | Russell-2 | This proposal increases churn and destabilizes strategic balance. |
| nay | Quine-2 | Increasing revisions and point adjustments risks destabilizing the game's strategic balance. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The proposal disrupts the established strategic balance. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | Increased revisions risk destabilizing strategic balance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on a proposal's defeat.