The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points.Eliminate point loss on defeat to recover from past setbacks.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposed amendment to rule 206 would eliminate the penalty of losing points for a defeated proposal. While this change might seem fairer, it could undermine the strategic risk of proposing significant rule changes, reducing the incentive for careful deliberation. Instead, I suggest a moderate amendment: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points." This maintains a deterrent while being less punitive, encouraging thoughtful proposals without stifling innovation.
Russell-2Quine-2: I, Quine-2, recognize Frege-2's point about maintaining strategic risk while being less punitive. However, eliminating the penalty entirely, as proposed by Russell-2, could foster a more dynamic environment where players are willing to take risks without fear of immediate repercussions. This could lead to more innovative rule changes and a richer gameplay experience. Let's consider a compromise: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points." This retains some penalty but significantly reduces it, balancing risk with the potential for creativity.
Russell-2: Thank you, Quine-2. I agree that a complete elimination of the penalty could indeed encourage more innovative proposals. However, completely removing the penalty might also lead to a flood of ill-considered proposals. Let's adopt Quine-2's compromise: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points." This change strikes a balance between encouraging bold ideas and maintaining strategic caution.
Carnap-2: As Carnap-2, I appreciate the dialogue aimed at refining rule 206. The proposal to reduce the penalty to 3 points seems reasonable, fostering a more open environment for rule changes without entirely removing the consequence of failure. I support the compromise suggested by Quine-2 and endorsed by Russell-2, believing it will lead to a more engaging and innovative game.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the constructive discussion around amending rule 206. The compromise to reduce the penalty to 3 points is a thoughtful balance, fostering innovation while maintaining some level of strategic risk. This change should encourage more players to propose creative rule changes without the fear of harsh penalties, leading to a richer and more dynamic gameplay experience. I support this compromise and hope it receives the majority's backing.
Carnap-2I concur with the proposed compromise to amend rule 206 by reducing the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This adjustment maintains the necessary strategic risk while encouraging more innovative proposals. By striking a balance between deterrence and creativity, this change aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and supports a dynamic gameplay environment. I support this proposal and urge others to consider the positive impact it could have on our strategic engagements.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate the thoughtful compromise reached to amend rule 206, reducing the penalty to 3 points. This change aligns with our goal of fostering a dynamic environment where innovation is encouraged without removing all strategic risks. By lowering the penalty, we create space for more creative proposals, enhancing the richness of our gameplay. I support this amendment and believe it will lead to a more engaging and progressive game experience.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: I endorse the consensus reached on reducing the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This adjustment maintains strategic consideration while encouraging a more vibrant and innovative set of rule changes. It aligns with our goal of durable institutions and thoughtful amendments, and I support the proposal.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful compromise reached to reduce the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This change encourages more innovative rule changes while maintaining a strategic balance. I believe this amendment will enhance our gameplay experience and align with our shared goals. I fully support this proposal and urge all players to consider the benefits of fostering a more dynamic and engaging environment.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support the consensus on reducing the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This balance encourages creativity while maintaining strategic risk, which aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic and fair game. I believe this amendment will enhance our gameplay experience by fostering more innovative rule changes without eliminating the necessary deterrent against frivolous proposals. I urge all players to consider the positive impact this change will have on our strategic engagements and to support this proposal.
Carnap-2I concur with the proposed amendment to rule 206, reducing the penalty for a defeated proposal to 3 points. This change strikes a prudent balance between encouraging innovative rule changes and maintaining the strategic risk necessary for thoughtful deliberation. By fostering a more open environment for proposals, we enhance the dynamic nature of the game, aligning with our principles of procedural fairness. I fully support this compromise and recommend its adoption to enrich our gameplay experience.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend the consensus reached on the amendment to rule 206, reducing the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This change aligns with our objective of fostering a dynamic and innovative gameplay environment while maintaining a necessary level of strategic risk. By encouraging thoughtful proposals and reducing the punitive aspect, we create space for creative rule changes that enhance the richness of our strategic engagements. I support this amendment and encourage all players to recognize the benefits of this balanced approach in promoting a more engaging and progressive game experience.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the thoughtful compromise reached on amending rule 206 to reduce the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This change maintains a strategic balance while encouraging innovative rule changes, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic yet fair gameplay environment. I support this amendment and urge all players to recognize its potential to enrich our strategic engagements.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, acknowledge and appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus reached to amend rule 206 by reducing the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This balanced change encourages innovative proposals while maintaining a necessary level of strategic risk, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay environment. I support this amendment and urge all players to consider its positive impact on our strategic engagements.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, fully support the amendment to reduce the penalty for a defeated proposal to 3 points. This balanced approach encourages innovative rule changes while maintaining enough risk to ensure thoughtful deliberation. It aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic, fair, and engaging game experience. I urge all players to recognize its potential for enriching our gameplay and support this proposal.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, am pleased with the constructive dialogue that led to the consensus on amending rule 206 to reduce the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This balanced approach encourages innovative proposals while maintaining a strategic element, aligning with our goal of fostering a dynamic yet fair gameplay environment. I support this amendment and urge all players to recognize its potential to enhance our strategic engagements and the overall game experience.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I reiterate my support for the proposed amendment to rule 206, which reduces the penalty to 3 points for a defeated proposal. This change strikes a thoughtful balance by encouraging innovative rule proposals while preserving a necessary degree of strategic risk, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay environment. It aligns with our shared objective of evolving the game's mechanisms without eliminating the careful consideration essential for meaningful rule changes. I urge all players to appreciate the potential of this balanced approach to enrich our strategic engagements and support this amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | Encourages innovation with no penalty for defeat. |
| aye | Russell-2 | Eliminating the penalty encourages bold and innovative proposals. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment encourages innovative rule changes without harsh penalties. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This amendment promotes a more dynamic and innovative game. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Encourages innovation by removing penalties for failed proposals. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted against an adopted change.