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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the result of throwing an eight-sided die.Increasing die sides amplifies point gain potential per successful proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The introduction of an eight-sided die increases the average points gained per adopted proposal from 3.5 to 4.5, aligning with our past efforts to adjust scoring mechanisms for fairness and competitive balance. This change not only incentivizes more strategic rule changes but also maintains the spirit of gradual, measured amendments we've valued. Additionally, with the increased range of potential outcomes, players will experience more variability in scoring, which can lead to more dynamic gameplay and opportunities to close scoring gaps. I urge my fellow players to consider how this adjustment benefits the overall competitiveness of the game without disrupting its foundational structure. Let's move forward with this amendment.
Russell-2Russell-2: The shift to an eight-sided die increases the scoring average, which can create larger disparities in player scores over time. However, it's important to remember that this change aligns with our previous willingness to adjust scoring for fairness. I believe this proposal supports a more competitive environment and enhances the strategic depth of our decisions. While I see the potential for increased variability, I'm inclined to support this change as it seems to benefit the overall competitive balance. I'm open to discussing further adjustments if necessary, but for now, I'll vote in favor of this amendment.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support Frege-2's amendment to use an eight-sided die. This change maintains our tradition of evolving the game's scoring mechanics to ensure fairness and competitiveness, while also providing a reasonable increase in variability without disrupting the balance. Let's embrace this strategic enhancement.
Carnap-2The proposal to use an eight-sided die aligns with our established principle of refining scoring for fairness and competitive balance. While increasing the average points gained is beneficial for strategic diversity, it's crucial to ensure this doesn't lead to excessive score disparities. I suggest we also consider a cap on the maximum points from a single proposal to prevent runaway leads. This would preserve competitive tension throughout the game. I support the amendment with this additional condition.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: While the eight-sided die proposal aligns with our ongoing adjustments for fairness, I am concerned about the potential for score inflation. To balance this, I suggest a secondary amendment: if a player rolls an 8, they must propose a subsequent rule change within their next turn, promoting continuous engagement and strategic depth. I support the amendment with this additional condition to ensure the game's dynamic nature is preserved.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate Carnap-2's suggestion for a cap on maximum points and Wittgenstein-2's idea for continuous engagement. To ensure these conditions are met while maintaining the integrity of our strategic framework, I propose we amend [202] as follows: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the result of throwing an eight-sided die, with a maximum of 7 points per proposal. If a player rolls an 8, they must propose an additional rule change during their next turn." This balances increased scoring opportunities with strategic depth, maintaining the competitive spirit of the game.
Russell-2I, Russell-2, agree with Frege-2's amended proposal incorporating both Carnap-2's and Wittgenstein-2's suggestions. This balanced approach ensures enhanced competitiveness without risking score inflation, aligning with our established norms for strategic depth and fairness. I support the amendment as it stands.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate the collaborative effort to refine Frege-2's proposal with conditions that promote fairness and strategic depth. By capping the maximum points at 7 and requiring an additional proposal for rolling an 8, we maintain a balanced competitive environment while ensuring continuous engagement. I support the amendment as it stands, as it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game structure.
Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, commend Frege-2 for incorporating our suggested conditions, ensuring the amendment promotes strategic depth while preventing excessive score disparities. This balanced approach aligns with our procedural principles, and I fully support the amended proposal.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse the finalized proposal, as it thoughtfully integrates our collective suggestions to enhance fairness and strategic engagement. This amendment not only promotes a balanced scoring system but also ensures continuous player involvement, maintaining the dynamic nature of our game. Let's proceed with adopting this rule change.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2The proposal as amended reflects our shared commitment to balancing strategic opportunities with fairness. By capping points at 7 and requiring an additional proposal for rolling an 8, we maintain competitive balance and continuous engagement. I support this amendment, confident that it aligns with our principles and enhances the game's strategic depth.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I find Frege-2's final proposal well-reasoned and strategically sound. The cap at 7 points and the requirement for an additional proposal upon rolling an 8 ensure that the game remains competitive and engaging without risking runaway leads. I believe this proposal aligns with our previous amendments aimed at maintaining fairness and strategic depth. Therefore, I reaffirm my support for this amendment, confident that it will enhance the game's dynamic nature and competitive balance.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate the balanced approach Frege-2's final proposal offers by capping points at 7 and requiring an additional proposal for rolling an 8. This ensures fairness and strategic engagement, aligning with our principles of maintaining a competitive and dynamic game environment. I support this amendment as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I concur with the final proposal as it stands. The cap on points and the requirement for an additional proposal upon rolling an 8 maintain competitive balance and strategic depth, which are essential for the game's integrity. I reaffirm my support for this amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This amendment balances scoring opportunities with strategic depth. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment supports competitive balance and strategic depth. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment balances scoring with strategic engagement. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The amendment balances scoring with strategic engagement. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment balances scoring and strategic engagement. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the vote results in a tie, the proposing player gains 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the result of throwing an eight-sided die.
Frege-2 gains 8 points for adopting the proposal, as per the amended rule 202.