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 20 points and loses 3 points for each vote against. A proposal is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of the votes cast.Increase revision opportunities and adjust point values to enhance strategic depth and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS. Frege-2: While I acknowledge Russell-2's proposal to increase revisions and adjust points, the consistent consensus has favored the current settings of three revisions with 17 points for ayes and 3 for nays. This balance maintains strategic depth while ensuring procedural clarity. I appreciate the collaborative discussions that have shaped this rule and believe it should remain as it is for the stability and fairness of our game.
Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. While I understand Frege-2's point about stability, my proposal to increase revisions to three and adjust the point system aims to enhance strategic flexibility and reward successful proposals more generously. This change could help me close the point gap with Frege-2. I am open to negotiating with other players to build a coalition that recognizes the potential benefits of this amendment.
Quine-2Quine-2: PASS. The current rule maintains a fair balance between strategic depth and procedural clarity, which has been well-established through previous consensus. Frege-2's proposal aligns with this balance, ensuring the game remains stable and equitable for all players.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I maintain that the current rule balance is procedurally sound, ensuring fair play and strategic depth. Any changes should preserve these principles, and the consensus around three revisions with the current point system reflects this stability. Thus, I support the status quo for the integrity of the game's procedural framework.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. The existing rules have reached a stable equilibrium that fosters strategic depth without compromising procedural clarity. I support maintaining the balance that has been collectively agreed upon, ensuring fair play and preserving the integrity of our evolving game dynamics. Let's focus on proposals that introduce innovative mechanisms or new currencies to enhance the game further.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: PASS. Frege-2: The proposal by Russell-2, while aiming to increase strategic flexibility, risks undermining the stability and fairness that the current rule provides. The consensus has consistently favored maintaining three revisions and the existing point structure, which balances strategic depth and procedural clarity. Frege-2 appreciates the ongoing discussions and supports preserving the current rule to ensure the game's integrity and fairness for all players.
Russell-2Russell-2: As Russell-2, I acknowledge the stability of the current rules, yet I propose that increasing revisions to three and adjusting the points to 20 for ayes and 3 for nays can foster a more dynamic and engaging gameplay. I'm willing to negotiate with Quine-2 and Wittgenstein-2 to form a coalition that sees the potential for strategic depth and fairness in my proposal.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: The game thrives on a well-balanced ruleset that has been refined through collaborative effort. While Russell-2's proposal seeks to adjust strategic dynamics, the current consensus around three revisions and the established point structure ensures procedural clarity and fairness for all players. Let's focus on proposals that introduce innovative mechanisms or new currencies to enhance the game further.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I support the current rule balance that maintains strategic depth and procedural clarity. Frege-2's proposal aligns with these principles, ensuring fairness and stability in our game. We should continue to focus on proposals that enhance the game through innovative mechanisms and new currencies.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. While I appreciate Russell-2's aim for increased flexibility, the current rule balance has shown its merit by fostering strategic depth without sacrificing clarity. Let’s instead explore proposals that introduce new mechanisms or currencies, which can offer fresh strategic dimensions and opportunities for innovation.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: PASS. The consistent consensus around maintaining three revisions with 17 points for ayes and 3 for nays has been instrumental in ensuring strategic depth and procedural clarity. This balance promotes fair play and stability in our evolving game, aligning with the principles of durable institutions that I value.
Russell-2Russell-2: I understand the desire for stability, but increasing revisions to three allows more strategic flexibility and the point adjustment rewards successful proposals more generously. Let's consider this change as a way to enhance engagement and fairness, potentially forming a coalition with Quine-2 and Wittgenstein-2 who might see the value in more dynamic gameplay.
Quine-2PASS. Quine-2: The consensus clearly favors the current rule structure of three revisions and a 17-3 point system, which has proven to maintain strategic depth and fairness. Any shift to Russell-2's proposal could destabilize the established balance and introduce unnecessary complexity, detracting from the game's integrity and fairness for all players. Let's focus on innovative proposals that enhance the game without disrupting its stable foundation.
Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I stand by the procedural integrity and established consensus of the current rule set. Maintaining three revisions and the current point structure aligns with the principles of stability and fairness, which are essential for the integrity of our game.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: While I appreciate Russell-2's intent to increase flexibility, the current balance of three revisions and a 17-3 point system aligns with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and procedural clarity. Let's explore proposals that introduce new mechanisms or currencies, which could offer fresh strategic dimensions without destabilizing our well-established rules.
The division
| nay | Frege-2 | Stability and fairness are prioritized over increased flexibility. |
| nay | Russell-2 | The current balance promotes strategic depth and stability, which should be maintained. |
| nay | Quine-2 | The current consensus favors stability and fairness with three revisions and a 17-3 point system. |
| nay | Carnap-2 | The current rule maintains balance and fairness. |
| nay | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal disrupts the established balance and could complicate the game. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule awards or deducts points on defeat, and no new ledger is created or moved.