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 14 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least three-quarters of the votes cast.Streamlining revisions enhances strategic depth and rewards proposers more effectively.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [202]. Reducing the number of revisions to two maintains strategic depth without overcomplicating turns, and increasing the points for votes in favor and against incentivizes thoughtful engagement. This balanced approach aligns well with our shared goal of promoting both strategic gameplay and a dynamic, yet stable, rules environment.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support Frege-2's proposal. By reducing the number of revisions to two, we maintain a manageable complexity that encourages precise initial proposals and strategic decision-making. Additionally, increasing the points for votes in favor and against enhances player engagement and aligns with the objective of incentivizing thoughtful voting. This amendment strikes a balance between strategic depth and maintaining a stable rules environment, which is crucial for consistent gameplay.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal to reduce revisions to two while adjusting points for votes in favor and against appears to strike a fair balance, fostering strategic depth without compromising game stability. However, it's crucial to consider if this change aligns with the collective goal of maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment. I'll support it, but I encourage further discussion to ensure it meets everyone's strategic interests.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support Frege-2's amendment to [202]. Reducing revisions to two ensures clarity and efficiency in proposing changes while the increased points for votes maintain incentives for strategic engagement. This proposal aligns with our procedural principles, fostering a balanced and dynamic rules environment.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Frege-2's proposal. By reducing revisions to two and adjusting the points for votes, we encourage more deliberate and strategic proposals, aligning well with our goal of fostering an engaging yet stable rules environment. This change promotes thoughtful engagement and aligns with the collective aim of enhancing strategic depth while maintaining procedural balance.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal effectively balances the need for strategic depth with procedural clarity, and the support from all players reflects a shared commitment to a stable and engaging rules environment. This consensus ensures that we maintain a dynamic yet consistent framework, aligning with our shared objectives.
Russell-2PASS. The consistent support for Frege-2's proposal to reduce revisions and adjust point allocations reflects a strategic consensus that balances engagement with procedural stability. This alignment ensures the rules environment remains dynamic yet consistent, fostering thoughtful participation and maintaining our collective objectives.
Quine-2PASS. The proposal to amend [202] by Frege-2, reducing revisions to two and adjusting the point system, seems to strike a commendable balance between strategic complexity and game stability. With unanimous support from all players, it aligns well with our shared goals of maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment, ensuring thoughtful engagement and strategic depth.
Carnap-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to amend [202] with reduced revisions and an adjusted point system has garnered unanimous support, reflecting a strong consensus. This aligns with our procedural principles, ensuring a balanced and strategic approach to rule changes, fostering both engagement and stability in the ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to amend [202], reducing revisions to two and adjusting the point system, has already garnered unanimous support. This consensus aligns perfectly with our collective goals of maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment, ensuring thoughtful engagement, and strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal effectively balances strategic depth with procedural clarity, garnering unanimous support. This alignment ensures the rules environment remains dynamic yet consistent, fostering thoughtful participation and maintaining our collective objectives.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend [202]. Reducing revisions to two enhances clarity and strategic focus in proposals, while the adjusted point system incentivizes thoughtful voting, aligning with our collective goals of maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment. This change fosters strategic depth and procedural efficiency, ensuring consistent gameplay and player engagement.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 acknowledges the consistent support for Frege-2's proposal, which aligns with the collective goal of maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment. The reduced revisions and adjusted point system promote strategic depth and thoughtful engagement, ensuring the ruleset remains balanced and fair.
Carnap-2PASS. The consensus among all players to amend [202] reflects a shared commitment to maintaining a dynamic yet stable rules environment. This alignment supports our collective objectives of strategic depth, procedural clarity, and balanced engagement.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. The unanimous support for Frege-2's proposal to amend [202] confirms a collective alignment towards a rules environment that is both dynamic and stable. The proposed changes encourage strategic depth and thoughtful engagement, ensuring the game remains balanced and engaging for all players.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This amendment balances strategic depth with procedural clarity. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The amendment balances strategic engagement with procedural clarity. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This proposal balances strategic depth and incentivizes thoughtful voting. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposal maintains procedural clarity and strategic engagement. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment promotes strategic depth while maintaining a stable rules environment. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 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 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.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 14 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives at least three-quarters of the votes cast.
Frege-2 gains 14 points for each of the 5 aye votes, totaling 70 points, and loses 0 points for nays, resulting in a net gain of 70 points.