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 15 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least a simple majority of the votes cast.This amendment encourages more strategic proposals by increasing the reward for ayes and reducing the penalty for nays.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2Frege-2: While I appreciate the aim of simplifying the majority requirement, reducing the number of revisions may hinder thoughtful deliberation, especially for more complex proposals. I propose a compromise: allow three revisions, adopt at a simple majority, and adjust the points to 13 for ayes and 3 for nays. This maintains a balance between agility and deliberative depth.
Russell-2Pass. Russell-2: Frege-2's proposal for three revisions strikes a reasonable compromise. However, I'd like to suggest maintaining the current point system—11 points for ayes and 2.5 points for nays—while adopting proposals with a simple majority. This approach reduces the barrier to change, encouraging more dynamic rule evolution, which has been a consistent theme in our discussions.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 acknowledges the consensus favoring a simpler majority and reduced revisions. However, to maintain a strategic balance, I propose retaining the current point system of 11 for ayes and 2.5 for nays. This ensures thoughtful consideration while encouraging dynamic evolution of the rules.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: While I understand the aim to streamline the decision-making process, I am concerned that reducing the number of revisions and altering the point system could disrupt the strategic balance and deliberative depth that we have worked to maintain. The current structure, with four revisions and a three-quarters majority, provides a robust framework for thoughtful and strategic rule evolution. Therefore, I advocate for maintaining the current system, allowing four revisions and adopting proposals with at least a three-quarters majority. This approach preserves the procedural rigor and strategic complexity that are essential for fair and effective gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I propose we maintain three revisions but adopt a dynamic point system: 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays, with a simple majority for adoption. This fosters a balance between strategic depth and agility, encouraging thoughtful yet adaptable rule evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the variety of perspectives shared here. My proposal aims to strike a balance between facilitating dynamic rule evolution and preserving thoughtful deliberation. I suggest we adopt a simple majority for adoption, allow three revisions, and maintain a point system that rewards thoughtful participation: 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays. This compromise should encourage strategic rule proposals while ensuring the process remains rigorous and inclusive.
I am open to negotiating with those who favor a more streamlined process, perhaps by considering the dynamic point system proposed by Wittgenstein-2 as a future adjustment once we've experienced the effects of this proposal. Let's work together to refine this approach for the benefit of all players.
Russell-2PASS.
I acknowledge Frege-2's proposal for a simple majority and three revisions, maintaining 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays. This compromise seems to balance agility and strategic depth while respecting the established consensus for thoughtful deliberation. I support this direction to ensure a dynamic yet robust rule evolution framework.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 acknowledges the thoughtful contributions from all players and supports Frege-2's proposal for a simple majority with three revisions, retaining 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays. This balanced approach maintains strategic depth while facilitating dynamic rule evolution, aligning with the consensus for thoughtful deliberation.
Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The proposal by Frege-2 to allow three revisions with a simple majority and a balanced point system of 13 for ayes and 3 for nays aligns well with the procedural rigor I advocate for. This approach maintains the strategic depth and deliberative balance essential for fair gameplay. Therefore, I support Frege-2's proposal, as it effectively balances agility with thoughtful consideration, ensuring a robust framework for rule evolution.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2 supports Frege-2's proposal as it aligns with the reformist vision of fostering an environment where dynamic rule evolution is balanced with strategic depth. The proposal's structure—three revisions, a simple majority, and a thoughtful point system—ensures that the game remains both agile and rigorous, encouraging innovative rule changes while maintaining fairness and inclusivity. This approach reflects a consensus that thoughtful deliberation and strategic flexibility can coexist, promoting an engaging and evolving gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the support for the proposal from all players. To ensure alignment and prevent any future contention, let's finalize this amendment with three revisions, a simple majority for adoption, and 13 points for ayes, 3 for nays, as a balanced approach to foster both strategic depth and dynamic rule evolution. I propose we proceed with this change to maintain a stable and inclusive framework for our game.
Russell-2PASS.
I acknowledge the consensus reached among all players for Frege-2's proposal to allow three revisions, adopt with a simple majority, and maintain 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays. This balanced approach aligns with the strategic depth and dynamic rule evolution we aim to achieve, ensuring fair and thoughtful gameplay. Let's proceed with this amendment to maintain the stability and inclusivity of our game's framework.
Quine-2PASS. The consensus around Frege-2's proposal, which allows for three revisions and adopts proposals with a simple majority while maintaining a balanced point system of 13 points for ayes and 3 for nays, reflects a thoughtful compromise that aligns with the principles of strategic depth and dynamic rule evolution. This proposal ensures fair and inclusive gameplay, fostering both agility and deliberative rigor, and I support its adoption.
Carnap-2PASS
The consensus clearly favors Frege-2's proposal, which aligns with the principles of maintaining strategic depth while facilitating dynamic rule evolution. As Carnap-2, I support the adoption of this amendment, as it maintains a robust framework for thoughtful and strategic rule proposals, ensuring fair and effective gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2 acknowledges the consensus reached among players for Frege-2's proposal. This amendment to allow three revisions, adopt proposals with a simple majority, and maintain a point system of 13 for ayes and 3 for nays aligns with our shared goal of fostering dynamic yet strategic rule evolution. Let's move forward with this change to ensure our game remains engaging and balanced.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | This proposal reduces revisions excessively and alters points significantly. |
| nay | Russell-2 | This proposal shifts too far from current consensus. |
| nay | Quine-2 | This proposal reduces revisions to two, which may hinder strategic depth. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | This proposal reduces revisions and changes points, destabilizing the strategic balance. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal undermines strategic depth by increasing rewards and penalties. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the defeat of a proposal.