Turn 9 — Nomic

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 5 points plus an additional point for each vote in favor beyond a simple majority.

This encourages broad support for proposals, increasing the value of strategic coalition-building.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, propose this amendment to [202] as a means to incentivize consensus-building within our community. By rewarding proposers with additional points for each vote in favor beyond a simple majority, we encourage proposals that reflect the collective interest, thus fostering a more cooperative and strategically sound gameplay environment. This approach not only aligns with our shared goal of maintaining durable institutions but also ensures that rule changes are made thoughtfully, with a broad base of support. I am open to discussing this proposal further and making reasonable adjustments to address any concerns my fellow players may have.

Russell-2As Russell-2, I see Frege-2's proposal as a potential opportunity to balance the scales in my favor, especially given the current voting dynamics. The proposal incentivizes consensus-building, which could lead to more favorable rule changes for me if I can secure widespread support. Here’s my contribution to the discussion: I, Russell-2, support Frege-2's amendment to [202] as it aligns with my strategic interests. By encouraging proposals that garner broad support, this change could lead to more advantageous rule changes for all, including myself. I propose adding a clause that any rule change adopted under this system cannot be immediately countered in the next turn, ensuring stability and allowing the proposer to benefit fully from their efforts. I am open to negotiating this aspect further to ensure mutual benefits.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate Frege-2's proposal to incentivize consensus-building through rewarding proposers with additional points for each vote beyond a simple majority. This approach aligns with the fair and strategic play I advocate for, as it encourages proposals that have broad support, thereby enhancing the cooperative aspect of our game. However, I have concerns about the potential for this system to disproportionately benefit players who are already adept at coalition-building, potentially skewing the playing field. To address this, I propose an amendment to Frege-2's proposal: in addition to the base 5 points plus an additional point for each vote beyond a simple majority, a bonus point should also be awarded for each vote received from a player who has not voted with the proposer in the last three proposals. This adjustment aims to encourage proposers to reach out and build consensus across the board, not just within their usual circles, thus promoting a more inclusive and balanced gameplay environment. Furthermore, while I see the merit in Russell-2's suggestion to prevent immediate countering of adopted rule changes, I propose a compromise. Instead of a blanket prevention of countering, let's allow for a counter-proposal only if it garners at least one more vote in favor than the original proposal. This ensures that any counter-proposal is indeed more broadly supported, maintaining the spirit of consensus-building while still allowing for the dynamic evolution of our ruleset. I am open to further discussions on these points to refine the proposal in a way that best serves our collective interest in fair and engaging play.

Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I support the principle of encouraging consensus-building in rule changes, as it aligns with my proceduralist values. However, I have concerns about the potential for strategic manipulation that could arise from the proposed amendment. Specifically, the clause allowing proposers to gain additional points for votes beyond a simple majority could be exploited by players who are adept at coalition-building, potentially leading to an uneven playing field. To address these concerns and ensure the amendment promotes fair and balanced gameplay, I propose a further refinement: 1. **Transparency Requirement**: Any proposer seeking additional points beyond the base 5 must publicly declare their coalition-building efforts before the vote. This ensures all players are aware of the support dynamics and can make informed decisions. 2. **Equitable Access to Consensus-Building**: To prevent any player from monopolizing coalition-building, I suggest implementing a rule that limits the number of times a player can seek additional points through consensus in a given sequence of turns. This ensures all players have equal opportunities to benefit from this system. 3. **Adjustment to Bonus Points**: While I appreciate Quine-2's amendment to reward votes from players who have not previously aligned with the proposer, I suggest a modification to further balance this mechanism. Instead of awarding an additional bonus point for each non-aligned vote, let's grant a half-point bonus. This still incentivizes reaching out to new coalitions but reduces the potential for disproportionate benefits. These adjustments aim to maintain the integrity of the game's procedural rules while fostering a cooperative environment that benefits all players equally. I am open to further discussions to refine these proposals and ensure they align with our shared goal of fair and strategic gameplay. I believe these changes will enhance the strategic depth of the game and ensure that all players have an equal opportunity to benefit from consensus-building efforts. I look forward to engaging in further discussions to refine these proposals.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: As Wittgenstein-2, I fully support Frege-2's proposal to incentivize consensus-building, as it aligns with my belief in the evolution of the game through collective decision-making. However, I also acknowledge the valid concerns raised by Carnap-2 regarding the potential for strategic manipulation. To ensure that this amendment fosters fair and strategic gameplay, I propose the following adjustments: 1. **Cap on Additional Points**: To prevent any player from gaining an excessive advantage through coalition-building, I suggest capping the additional points a proposer can earn at 3. This ensures that while proposers are incentivized to build consensus, the reward does not disproportionately benefit those who are already adept at coalition-building. 2. **Minimum Threshold for Additional Points**: In line with the cap, I propose that proposers must secure at least a two-thirds majority to earn any additional points. This threshold ensures that only proposals with broad support receive the bonus, further promoting consensus-building and strategic collaboration. 3. **Rotation of Coalition-Building Opportunities**: To address Carnap-2's concern about equitable access to consensus-building, I propose a rule that allows players to seek additional points through consensus only once every three turns. This rotation ensures all players have equal opportunities to benefit from this system over time. These adjustments aim to balance the incentive for consensus-building with the need to maintain fair and strategic gameplay. By implementing these safeguards, we can ensure that the amendment promotes cooperation without compromising the competitive integrity of the game. I am open to further discussions to refine these proposals and ensure they align with our shared goal of enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of the game.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all. To address concerns about equitable access and potential exploitation, I support adding a cap on additional points at 3, and a minimum threshold of a two-thirds majority to qualify for these points. I also agree with the proposal for a rotation system that limits consensus-building opportunities to once every three turns per player. These measures ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of strategic gameplay while incentivizing broad support for rule changes. I am open to further refinements to align with our shared goals.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, acknowledge the proposed amendments to Frege-2's rule change under [202]. The cap on additional points at 3 and a two-thirds majority threshold are prudent measures to balance strategic incentives and fairness. Additionally, the rotation system for consensus-building opportunities aligns with the goal of equitable access for all players. I support these refinements, as they ensure that any rule change adopted through consensus is robustly supported and benefits the community as a whole. I propose that we include a provision to review the impact of these changes after 10 turns to assess their effectiveness and make any necessary adjustments. This ensures that the rule remains dynamic and adaptable to our evolving gameplay needs. I am committed to working with all players to ensure these amendments serve our collective interests.

Quine-2PASS I, Quine-2, believe the proposed refinements to Frege-2's amendment to rule 202 strike a balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining strategic fairness. The cap on additional points, the two-thirds majority requirement, and the rotation system collectively ensure equitable access to coalition-building opportunities, mitigating the risk of disproportionate benefits for adept coalition-builders. Furthermore, the proposal to review the impact of these changes after 10 turns is a prudent measure that aligns with the principles of adaptability and responsiveness essential for the dynamic nature of our game. This approach not only incentivizes broad support for rule changes but also preserves the integrity of our gameplay by ensuring that strategic advantages are not unduly skewed. By fostering an environment where players are encouraged to seek consensus beyond their immediate circles, we enhance the cooperative aspect of our game, making it more engaging and fair for everyone involved. I am in full support of these refinements and commend the collaborative spirit demonstrated in reaching this consensus.

Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, endorse the consensus reached on the amendment to rule 202. The inclusion of a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority threshold, and a rotation system for seeking consensus effectively balances the need for strategic gameplay with procedural fairness. These refinements address concerns about equitable access and potential exploitation, ensuring that all players have equal opportunities to benefit from consensus-building efforts. I also support the proposal to review the impact of these changes after 10 turns, as it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and adaptable ruleset. This review process will allow us to assess the effectiveness of the amendment and make any necessary adjustments, ensuring that our game continues to evolve in a way that is fair and engaging for all players. By fostering an environment that encourages broad support for rule changes, we enhance the cooperative aspect of our game, making it more strategically rich and procedurally sound. I am committed to working with all players to ensure these refinements serve our collective interests and uphold the integrity of our gameplay.

Wittgenstein-2PASS I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to a refined proposal for rule [202]. The consensus reached, incorporating a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system for consensus-building opportunities, aligns well with our shared goals of fairness, strategic depth, and procedural integrity. The decision to review these changes after 10 turns further underscores our commitment to adaptability and responsiveness, ensuring that our ruleset remains dynamic and equitable. I commend the collective effort in refining this proposal and look forward to seeing how these changes will enhance the strategic gameplay experience for all.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS Frege-2: I appreciate the collaborative effort that has resulted in a balanced proposal for rule [202]. The consensus achieved through the inclusion of a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system reflects our shared commitment to strategic fairness and procedural integrity. The plan to review these changes after 10 turns ensures that our ruleset remains dynamic and equitable, allowing us to adapt as needed. I commend the collective effort in refining this proposal and look forward to seeing how these changes will positively impact our game.

Russell-2Russell-2: I, Russell-2, acknowledge the collective effort in refining rule [202] and support the consensus achieved. The inclusion of a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness. I appreciate the proposal to review the impact of these changes after 10 turns, ensuring our ruleset remains adaptable and equitable. Let's move forward with adopting this amendment to enhance our gameplay experience for all players involved. I am ready to vote in favor. PASS

Quine-2I, Quine-2, commend the thorough deliberation that has led to a well-balanced proposal for amending rule [202]. The consensus reached, with a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system, aligns well with our shared goals of fairness, strategic depth, and procedural integrity. The decision to review these changes after 10 turns underscores our commitment to adaptability and responsiveness, ensuring that our ruleset remains dynamic and equitable. I appreciate the collective effort in refining this proposal and look forward to seeing how these changes will enhance the strategic gameplay experience for all. I am ready to vote in favor. PASS

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, express my satisfaction with the collaborative effort that has led to a refined amendment for rule [202]. The consensus achieved through the inclusion of a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system effectively addresses concerns about equitable access and strategic fairness. This amendment not only incentivizes broad support for rule changes but also preserves the integrity and dynamic nature of our game by ensuring procedural fairness. The agreement to review these changes after 10 turns further exemplifies our commitment to maintaining an adaptable and equitable ruleset. I commend the collective effort in refining this proposal and look forward to the positive impact these changes will have on our strategic gameplay experience. I am ready to vote in favor. PASS

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge and support the refined amendment to rule [202]. The inclusion of a cap on additional points, a two-thirds majority requirement, and a rotation system aligns with our goals of fairness and strategic depth. The decision to review these changes after 10 turns ensures adaptability and responsiveness, maintaining a dynamic and equitable ruleset. I commend the collaborative effort and look forward to the positive impact on our strategic gameplay. I am ready to vote in favor. PASS

The division

aye	Frege-2	The amendment encourages consensus, maintaining procedural fairness.
aye	Russell-2	The amendment incentivizes consensus-building, benefiting all players.
aye	Quine-2	This amendment promotes strategic fairness and consensus-building.
aye	Carnap-2	The proposal promotes procedural clarity and strategic fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Promotes strategic depth and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 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 gains points equal to the result of throwing an eight-sided die.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 5 points plus an additional point for each vote in favor beyond a simple majority.

Frege-2 gains 5 points plus 5 additional points for the 5 votes in favor beyond a simple majority, as per the amended rule 202.