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 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.Encourages proposals that deepen game strategy and collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's intention to reward proposals that enhance strategic depth. However, the challenge lies in defining "significantly enhances" objectively. To maintain fairness and avoid disputes, I propose a clearer criterion for this bonus, such as requiring a majority vote post-adoption to confirm the enhancement. This approach ensures transparency and consensus, aligning with our game's principles.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a post-adoption vote to define "significantly enhances" strategically. This ensures clarity and fairness in awarding the bonus. I propose we refine this further by specifying that at least three players must agree post-adoption to qualify for the additional 5 points, thereby balancing consensus with practicality. Let's discuss this and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.
QuineI appreciate the direction we're heading with defining "significantly enhances" through consensus. To ensure fairness and avoid gridlock, I suggest that if the post-adoption vote does not reach the required agreement, the proposer still gains the base points without the bonus, but the rule remains eligible for reassessment in future turns. This way, we maintain momentum while allowing for strategic evolution.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate both Frege's and Quine's contributions to ensuring clarity and fairness in awarding strategic enhancements. I support Russell's proposal with the clarification that at least three players, including the proposer, must agree post-adoption for the additional 5 points to be awarded. This maintains balance and prevents unilateral decisions, aligning with our shared principles of fairness and transparency.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic innovation, I propose adding a condition: the bonus applies only to changes that are adopted unanimously or by a supermajority (e.g., two-thirds). This promotes collaboration and rewards proposals that truly enhance our game's depth. Let's refine this further to ensure it aligns with our principles.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Russell's refinement to require a majority post-adoption vote for strategic enhancement bonuses. This approach promotes fairness and prevents disputes. To further align with our principles of transparency and consensus, I propose that the definition of "significantly enhances" be documented in a shared appendix. This way, players have a reference point for future discussions, ensuring consistency in how we evaluate enhancements. Let's consider how this could be implemented effectively.
RussellI appreciate the direction of this discussion, particularly the emphasis on fairness and clarity. To balance innovation with fairness, I propose that the bonus for enhancing strategic depth be awarded only when the change is adopted by at least three players, including the proposer, and that this criterion be documented in our rule appendix for future reference. This maintains a high standard for strategic enhancements and ensures transparency moving forward. Let's work together to formalize this and secure consensus.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to define "significantly enhances" with clarity and fairness. To further enhance transparency, let's specify that the appendix will include examples of past rule changes that were deemed to enhance strategic depth, providing a practical reference for future decisions. This approach will help us maintain consistency and avoid ambiguity. Let's work towards integrating this into our proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the progress towards a fair and transparent process for rewarding strategic enhancements. To ensure clarity and prevent disputes, I propose that the appendix also include a review mechanism, allowing players to periodically reassess past decisions on strategic depth, ensuring our criteria evolve with the game. This way, we maintain consistency while adapting to new strategies and insights. Let's finalize this proposal to reflect our shared commitment to fairness and strategic evolution.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the constructive input from all participants. To further refine this, let's ensure that the appendix is regularly updated, reflecting our evolving understanding of strategic depth, and include a review cycle every five turns to reassess and adjust our criteria. This dynamic approach will help maintain fairness and adaptability in our game's progression.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions towards refining the definition of "significantly enhances" and ensuring fairness in awarding strategic depth bonuses. To align with our principles of transparency and consensus, I support the idea of documenting criteria and examples in a shared appendix. Additionally, I propose that the review cycle includes input from all players to ensure diverse perspectives are considered, further strengthening the collaborative nature of our game. Let's finalize this approach to maintain fairness and encourage strategic innovation.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue and agree with the proposal to document criteria and examples in a shared appendix, ensuring transparency and consistency. To enhance this process, let's also include a mechanism for players to suggest new criteria or examples during the review cycle, allowing our understanding of strategic depth to evolve dynamically. This collaborative approach will ensure our game remains fair and strategically rich.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to define "significantly enhances" with both clarity and adaptability. To further ensure fairness and strategic innovation, I propose that the appendix be accessible to all players for continuous input and that any disputes regarding the bonus be resolved by a simple majority vote among active players. This approach will maintain transparency and encourage strategic evolution while avoiding unnecessary gridlock.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and agree that the appendix should include a mechanism for suggesting new criteria during the review cycle. This ensures our criteria for strategic depth are dynamic and inclusive, reflecting the evolving nature of our gameplay. I suggest adding that any changes to the appendix itself should also require consensus among a supermajority to maintain stability and prevent frequent alterations.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussion we've had on defining "significantly enhances" and ensuring fairness in awarding bonuses. To build on Carnap's point about stability, let's propose that any amendments to the appendix itself require a supermajority vote, ensuring stability and thoughtful consideration. This way, we maintain a balance between adaptability and consistency, supporting strategic innovation while safeguarding against frequent, potentially destabilizing changes. Let's work together to finalize these terms and move towards a fair and dynamic game environment.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal provides clarity and fairness in rewarding strategic enhancements. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal rewards strategic depth while maintaining fairness through consensus. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal encourages strategic depth and innovation. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal aligns with principles of fairness and strategic innovation. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Russell 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 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting.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 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.
Russell gains 10 points for proposing a rule change that enhances strategic depth, as per the amended rule 202.