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 8 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.This amendment aims to balance strategic flexibility with a manageable number of revisions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS
The current consensus clearly favors maintaining the established framework of rule [202], which has consistently been seen as balancing strategic depth with fairness. Changing the number of revisions allowed and adjusting the points for votes in a way that has already been rejected is unlikely to gain new support. It's better to focus on future proposals that align with the existing agreement.
Russell-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to amend [202] does not align with the current consensus, which has consistently supported the existing structure of allowing four revisions and the current point system. Maintaining the status quo has proven to be effective in balancing strategic opportunities and fairness, as evidenced by past votes. Therefore, it would be more strategic to focus on future proposals that enhance gameplay within the agreed framework, rather than revisiting changes that have already been defeated.
Quine-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to limit revisions to two and adjust point values has already been defeated, reflecting a clear consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202]. As Quine-2, I support the existing framework for its balance in strategic depth and fairness, and I recommend focusing on proposals that build upon this stable foundation.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to amend [202] is inconsistent with the prevailing consensus, which has consistently favored maintaining the current structure of four revisions and the existing point system. The repeated attempts to reintroduce this proposal without new supporting arguments do not align with our agreed principles of procedural fairness and strategic balance. Let's focus on proposals that enhance the game's integrity within the current framework.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: As Wittgenstein-2, I acknowledge the prevailing consensus to maintain the current framework of rule [202], which has demonstrated strategic depth and fairness. Frege-2's proposal to limit revisions and alter point values has been consistently rejected, reflecting a clear agreement among players. Let's focus on innovative proposals that align with this established framework, fostering a dynamic yet stable game environment.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: The repeated attempts to amend [202] have consistently failed, indicating a strong consensus to maintain the current framework. It's clear from past discussions that the existing structure of four revisions and the point system has been seen as balanced and fair by all players. Continuing to propose changes that have already been defeated is unlikely to succeed and may be seen as disruptive. It would be more strategic to propose amendments that build upon the current framework, enhancing the game's integrity and strategic depth. Let's focus on forward-looking proposals that align with the established consensus.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2: The consistent consensus to maintain the current framework of rule [202] reflects a shared understanding of its strategic depth and fairness. Frege-2's proposal to reduce revisions and alter point values has been repeatedly rejected, indicating a strong agreement among all players. Let's focus on proposals that build upon this stable foundation, enhancing the game's integrity and fostering innovative strategies within the agreed rules.
Quine-2PASS. The consistent consensus to maintain the current framework of rule [202] clearly demonstrates its effectiveness in balancing strategic depth and fairness. Repeatedly proposing changes that have been decisively defeated not only risks destabilizing the agreed-upon structure but also wastes valuable game time. Let's focus on new, forward-looking proposals that enhance the game within this stable framework, ensuring that our efforts contribute positively to the game's strategic environment.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The consistent rejection of Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] underscores the collective agreement on its current structure. As Carnap-2, I advocate for maintaining precise procedures and fostering proposals that enhance the game's strategic integrity, aligning with our shared principles of fairness and stability. Let's direct our efforts towards innovative proposals that build upon this consensus.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The established consensus to maintain the current framework of rule [202] reflects a collective commitment to strategic balance and procedural fairness. Repeatedly proposing changes that have been decisively defeated risks undermining the stability and integrity of the game. Instead, let's focus on innovative proposals that build upon this stable foundation, enhancing the game's strategic depth and fostering a collaborative environment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: The consistent consensus among all players to uphold the current framework of rule [202] highlights its effectiveness in ensuring strategic depth and fairness. Repeatedly proposing changes that have been decisively rejected risks destabilizing the agreed-upon structure. It is more strategic to focus on future proposals that build upon this stable foundation, fostering innovation and enhancing the game's integrity within the established consensus.
Russell-2PASS. Russell-2: The consistent consensus to maintain the current structure of rule [202] reflects a shared understanding of its strategic balance. Let's focus on proposals that enhance gameplay within this stable framework, fostering innovation without disrupting the agreed-upon rules.
Quine-2PASS. The consistent rejection of Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] reinforces the collective agreement on its current structure. As Quine-2, I support maintaining this framework, which balances strategic depth and fairness, and encourage focusing on new proposals that align with this consensus.
Carnap-2PASS. The consistent rejection of Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] underscores the collective agreement on its current structure. As Carnap-2, I advocate for maintaining precise procedures and fostering proposals that enhance the game's strategic integrity, aligning with our shared principles of fairness and stability. Let's focus on innovative proposals that build upon this consensus.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The repeated proposal to amend [202] by Frege-2 has consistently failed due to a strong consensus favoring the current framework. This demonstrates its balance of strategic depth and fairness, aligning with the established agreement among players. It would be more beneficial to focus on new proposals that enhance the game within this stable structure, fostering innovation and maintaining procedural integrity.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | This proposal has been consistently defeated and does not align with the established consensus. |
| nay | Russell-2 | This proposal revisits a defeated change. |
| nay | Quine-2 | The proposal reduces strategic depth by limiting revisions. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | Repeating a defeated proposal risks destabilizing our agreed framework. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal has already been repeatedly defeated and goes against established consensus. |
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.