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 11 points and loses 2.5 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least three-quarters of the votes cast.Encourages more substantial proposals by reducing revisions and increasing the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I acknowledge the consistent consensus favoring the current parameters of rule [202], which ensures stability in our strategic environment. However, I propose to slightly increase the challenge by requiring a higher threshold for adoption, ensuring that only well-supported changes are enacted. By reducing the number of revisions to three, we allow for more focused debate while still enabling thorough consideration of proposals. This approach balances the need for thoughtful amendments with the necessity of maintaining robust and durable rule changes. I invite my peers to consider this balanced adjustment to foster a more decisive and strategic game dynamic.
Russell-2Russell-2: Frege-2's proposal, while aiming for a more decisive game, introduces a higher barrier for change adoption that could stifle strategic flexibility and slow down potential beneficial adaptations. The current two-thirds majority has proven effective in fostering constructive changes without overwhelming the process. Reducing revisions to three might limit our ability to refine proposals, potentially leading to less optimal rule changes. Maintaining the two-thirds threshold encourages collaboration and compromise, which is crucial for a balanced and dynamic gameplay experience. I propose we keep the current structure of rule [202] to preserve these benefits and ensure continued strategic agility.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: While the proposal to raise the adoption threshold to three-quarters could enhance the decisiveness of rule changes, it risks marginalizing minority opinions and reducing the diversity of strategic approaches. The current two-thirds majority has successfully balanced the need for change with stability, and reducing revisions to three might hinder the refinement of proposals. Maintaining the current structure of rule [202] supports a more inclusive and dynamic strategic environment, encouraging collaboration and thoughtful amendments.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: Frege-2's proposal to raise the adoption threshold to three-quarters, while intended to ensure only well-supported changes, might inadvertently hinder the fluid evolution of our ruleset. By maintaining the two-thirds majority, we preserve the strategic flexibility necessary for adapting to unforeseen game dynamics. Furthermore, reducing revisions to three may prematurely limit our ability to refine proposals, potentially compromising the quality of rule changes. I propose we retain the current two-thirds majority and four revisions to ensure both robust debate and the incorporation of diverse strategic perspectives.
Wittgenstein-2Pass. The current two-thirds majority and four revisions have fostered a balanced environment for strategic rule changes. Reducing revisions could limit our ability to refine proposals, potentially leading to less optimal rule adaptations. Maintaining the current structure of rule [202] supports dynamic and inclusive gameplay, encouraging thoughtful amendments and collaboration.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: Frege-2: I appreciate the valuable perspectives shared by my peers. While I understand the importance of maintaining strategic flexibility, I believe my proposal introduces a balanced approach to ensure only well-supported changes are enacted. By slightly raising the adoption threshold to three-quarters and reducing revisions to three, we can foster a more decisive game environment without compromising the quality of rule changes. I am open to negotiating further to find a compromise that aligns with our collective goals. Let us consider a middle ground: maintaining the two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three, ensuring focused debates while preserving the strategic agility we all value.
Russell-2**Russell-2**: Frege-2's willingness to negotiate a middle ground by maintaining the two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three is a commendable step towards compromise. This adjustment can streamline discussions without overly restricting the strategic evolution of our ruleset. By focusing debates, we ensure that each proposal is thoroughly examined, yet still maintain the flexibility needed to adapt to new strategies. I support this balanced proposal as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment. Let's move forward with this proposal, ensuring that our strategic flexibility is preserved while enhancing the decisiveness of rule changes.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: The proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three is a well-balanced compromise that respects the need for both decisive rule changes and strategic flexibility. This adjustment aligns with the collective goal of fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment, ensuring that proposals are both thoroughly debated and adaptable to evolving strategies. I support this proposal as it effectively balances the interests of all players while preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: PASS. Carnap-2 acknowledges the merit in Frege-2's revised proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three. This balanced approach supports strategic flexibility and thorough debate, ensuring that rule changes are both well-supported and adaptable to our evolving game dynamics.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three strikes a judicious balance between thorough debate and the necessity for decisive rule changes. This adjustment upholds the strategic dynamism and inclusiveness that have characterized our gameplay thus far.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. The consensus around maintaining a two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three ensures a balanced approach to rule changes, fostering both strategic depth and decisive outcomes. This compromise reflects our shared commitment to a dynamic and inclusive game environment.
Russell-2PASS. The consensus is clear, and the proposal maintains a balance that supports strategic flexibility and inclusivity. This approach aligns with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic game environment, and I support moving forward with the current proposal.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus around maintaining a two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three strikes a balance between thorough debate and decisive rule changes. This adjustment supports strategic flexibility and inclusivity, ensuring a dynamic and fair game environment.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposed amendment to maintain a two-thirds majority while reducing revisions to three represents a balanced approach that aligns with our shared principles of strategic flexibility and robust debate. This compromise ensures that rule changes are both well-supported and thoroughly refined, fostering a dynamic and inclusive game environment.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposed amendment reflects a well-balanced compromise that maintains our strategic dynamism and inclusivity. It supports focused debates and ensures that rule changes are both well-considered and broadly supported, aligning with our shared goals.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This proposal maintains the two-thirds majority while streamlining debate with three revisions. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This proposal maintains strategic flexibility with focused debates. |
| aye | Quine-2 | The compromise maintains a balance between strategic depth and inclusivity. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposal balances thorough debate with decisive rule changes. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal maintains strategic depth while encouraging decisive rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 four times before it is voted on. For each vote in favor, the proposer gains 11 points and loses 2.5 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least two-thirds of the votes cast.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 11 points and loses 2.5 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least three-quarters of the votes cast.
Frege-2's proposal was adopted with 5 aye votes, earning 55 points (11 points per aye vote).