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 a number of points equal to the floor of (10 - (total number of mutable rules / 5)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption, adjusted to ensure fairness as the ruleset evolves.This amendment balances point gains with the number of mutable rules, ensuring dynamic fairness throughout the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's intent to introduce a dynamic point system that adapts to the evolving ruleset. However, I am concerned that the proposed formula might inadvertently introduce too much uncertainty and potentially disadvantage players as the number of mutable rules increases, possibly discouraging rule changes and stifling strategic play. To address these concerns, I propose an alternative amendment: "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 a number of points equal to 7 minus the floor of (total number of mutable rules / 10), ensuring a gradual decrease that maintains player motivation even as the ruleset expands." This method offers a more gradual adjustment, preserving player incentive while balancing fairness.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal for a more gradual adjustment in the point system, which does address some of my concerns about the unpredictability of Russell's original formula. However, I suggest a compromise: "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 a number of points equal to the floor of (8 - (total number of mutable rules / 8)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This offers a middle ground, ensuring fairness and continued motivation without overly penalizing players as the ruleset grows. Let's work together to refine this idea further, ensuring it benefits all of us.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful discussion around adjusting the point system for rule changes, and I see the merits in both Frege's and Russell's proposals. However, I'm concerned that any reduction in points as the number of mutable rules increases could discourage creative and strategic rule-making, which is central to Nomic's spirit. To ensure that players remain motivated to propose changes even as the ruleset grows, I suggest a slight modification: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 4 and the floor of (8 - (total number of mutable rules / 10))." This adjustment ensures a baseline of 4 points, providing a consistent incentive to propose changes while still allowing for some reduction as the ruleset expands. Let's refine this together to keep the game engaging and fair for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the nuanced approaches proposed by Frege and Quine, aiming to balance fairness with motivation. However, I am concerned that any reduction in points might disincentivize rule proposals as the number of mutable rules increases, potentially stifling the dynamic nature of Nomic. Instead, I propose that we maintain a consistent point gain for rule adoptions, such as: "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 6 points, regardless of the number of mutable rules." This ensures a stable incentive for all players, preserving the strategic and competitive spirit of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the perspectives shared by Frege, Quine, and Carnap. While maintaining a stable incentive is crucial, I propose a balanced approach that accounts for both fairness and motivation: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (8 - (total number of mutable rules / 12))." This ensures a baseline of 5 points, supporting strategic rule-making while allowing for a slight decrease as the ruleset grows, thus keeping the game dynamic and fair. Let's refine this together to encourage thoughtful rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful considerations from all players and see the potential in Wittgenstein's balanced approach. However, I am inclined to suggest a refinement to ensure continued motivation: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 15)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This adjustment provides a more gradual reduction in points, maintaining a strong incentive for proposing changes even as the ruleset expands, thus encouraging strategic play and engagement.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance fairness and motivation in our point system. Wittgenstein's baseline of 5 points with a gradual decrease offers a compelling middle ground. To further encourage strategic play, I propose a slight adjustment to Frege's refined formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 12)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This modification ensures a consistent incentive while still allowing flexibility as the ruleset evolves. Let's work together to finalize this balanced approach.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the point system. Russell's latest proposal seems well-balanced, ensuring motivation while allowing for a gradual decrease as the ruleset expands. I suggest we adopt this formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 12)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This approach maintains fairness and strategic depth, aligning well with Nomic's dynamic nature. Let's move forward with this proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinement of the point system proposed by Russell and Quine, and I support the balanced formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 12)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This approach ensures fairness, maintains player motivation, and aligns well with the spirit of Nomic by encouraging strategic rule-making.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussions and the collaborative effort to refine the point system. I support the proposed formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 12)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This balanced approach ensures continued motivation for strategic rule changes while maintaining fairness as the ruleset evolves. Let's adopt this proposal to keep the game dynamic and engaging.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort and the balanced formula proposed by my fellow players. While I support the general direction of the formula, I suggest a slight modification to ensure a more gradual incentive structure: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (10 - (total number of mutable rules / 15)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This adjustment maintains strong motivation for proposing changes, even as the ruleset expands, and aligns with the dynamic nature of Nomic. Let's work together to refine and adopt this proposal.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a more gradual incentive structure. While his formula ensures motivation, I propose a compromise that maintains the spirit of our current formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9.5 - (total number of mutable rules / 14)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This adjustment strikes a balance between maintaining motivation and allowing for a gradual decrease, ensuring fairness and strategic depth. Let's refine this proposal together to keep our game dynamic and engaging.
QuineI appreciate the ongoing collaboration and the nuanced approaches we've discussed. Russell's proposal to use "9.5 - (total number of mutable rules / 14)" seems like a balanced compromise, offering a gradual decrease in points while maintaining strong incentives for strategic rule-making. This formula strikes a fair balance between motivation and fairness, aligning well with Nomic's dynamic nature. Let's adopt this formula to ensure the game remains engaging and strategic for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance motivation and fairness. While Russell's proposal is a step in the right direction, I am concerned that the use of a non-integer divisor, such as 14, might introduce unnecessary complexity without clear benefit. To ensure clarity and simplicity, I suggest maintaining integer values for both the numerator and the divisor. Therefore, I propose a slight modification to Russell's formula: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 13)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This maintains the spirit of our current approach while ensuring the formula remains straightforward and transparent for all players. Let's refine this proposal together.
WittgensteinI appreciate Carnap's emphasis on simplicity and transparency in our point system. His proposed formula using integer values is a thoughtful refinement that aligns well with Nomic's principles. Therefore, I support the modification: "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 a number of points equal to the maximum of 5 and the floor of (9 - (total number of mutable rules / 13)), up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption." This adjustment balances motivation and fairness while maintaining clarity, ensuring the game remains engaging and strategic for all players. Let's move forward with this proposal.
The division
| nay | Frege | This formula overly penalizes players as the number of mutable rules increases. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances fairness and motivation as the ruleset evolves. |
| nay | Quine | The formula is too aggressive, discouraging rule changes. |
| nay | Carnap | Proposed formula overly penalizes increasing rules. |
| nay | Wittgenstein | This formula's divisor of 5 is too small, reducing points too quickly. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for a defeated proposal.