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 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.Balancing point incentives to encourage strategic play across multiple circuits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the effort to refine the point system, but I propose a modification that balances both strategic depth and fairness. Let's adjust the proposal to: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." This adjustment ensures that players are incentivized to continue engaging while maintaining strategic planning.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal, as it provides a balanced approach to rewarding players for both adopting changes and encouraging continued engagement in the game. However, to further incentivize strategic planning, I suggest we consider adding a bonus point for every two adoptions made within a single circuit. This would recognize players who consistently contribute valuable proposals, promoting active participation while maintaining fairness. What do you think?
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's contributions towards refining the point system for rule changes. However, to ensure that players remain motivated throughout the game, especially in the later stages, I propose adding a diminishing returns mechanism. Specifically, after every five circuits, the maximum points per adoption could decrease by one, down to a minimum of 3 points per adoption. This ensures that early game advantages don't disproportionately affect the end game, while still rewarding strategic foresight.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposals and Quine's suggestion for a diminishing returns mechanism. However, I am concerned that the proposed diminishing returns could be overly punitive and might discourage active participation as the game progresses. To address this, I propose a compromise: instead of reducing maximum points after every five circuits, we implement a gradual reduction after every ten circuits, maintaining a minimum of 4 points per adoption. This adjustment would balance the need for early-game incentives with long-term engagement without overly penalizing strategic contributions.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's, Russell's, and Quine's proposals for refining the point system, as they highlight the need for both early and sustained engagement. However, to ensure the game remains dynamic and fair, I propose incorporating a periodic review of the point system after every five circuits, allowing players to suggest adjustments based on game progress. This ensures adaptability while maintaining a balanced incentive structure.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the various suggestions to refine the point system. While I see the value in encouraging strategic foresight and maintaining long-term engagement, I am concerned that periodic reviews and adjustments could lead to instability in the rules, potentially disrupting the game's strategic balance. Therefore, I propose we maintain the current system with Frege's suggested adjustment: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." This provides a stable incentive structure that rewards both initial and sustained contributions without introducing potential disruptions from frequent reviews.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the insights from all players. To balance early-game incentives with long-term engagement while maintaining stability, I propose integrating a compromise. We could adopt Frege's system but add a bonus point for every three adoptions within a single circuit, ensuring rewards for strategic foresight without frequent rule changes. This would encourage active participation and sustained engagement throughout the game.
QuineI appreciate the constructive proposals from everyone, especially the balance between early-game incentives and long-term engagement. However, to ensure fairness across all stages of the game, I propose 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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." To further promote strategic foresight and adaptability, let's consider adding a rule that allows for a one-time adjustment of the point system after six circuits, based on a supermajority vote. This ensures the game remains engaging and fair, rewarding strategic contributions while allowing for necessary adjustments in response to evolving gameplay dynamics.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive debate and the focus on balancing early-game and long-term incentives. However, to ensure that the point system remains fair and adaptable, I propose the following: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." Additionally, to accommodate evolving game dynamics while maintaining stability, let's incorporate a one-time point system review after every six circuits, requiring a supermajority vote to approve any changes. This approach encourages strategic foresight and sustained engagement while allowing for necessary adjustments without frequent disruptions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussions and the focus on balancing strategic foresight with long-term engagement. To ensure adaptability while maintaining stability, I propose we adopt Quine's suggestion with a minor tweak: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." Additionally, to ensure fairness and adaptability, let's allow for a one-time point system adjustment after every six circuits, requiring a unanimous vote to approve any changes. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair without frequent disruptions.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the point system, particularly the focus on balancing early and sustained engagement. To maintain stability while allowing for necessary adaptations, I propose we adopt Quine's suggestion with 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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." Furthermore, to ensure fairness and adaptability without frequent rule disruptions, let's allow for a one-time point system adjustment after every eight circuits, requiring a supermajority vote to approve any changes. This approach balances strategic foresight with long-term engagement, ensuring a dynamic and fair game.
RussellI appreciate the nuanced suggestions and the collaborative spirit we've shown. To ensure that our rule changes promote sustained engagement and adaptability while maintaining fairness, I propose we integrate the most widely supported elements: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." Additionally, to address evolving game dynamics while ensuring stability, let's adopt the proposal for a one-time adjustment after every eight circuits, requiring a supermajority vote. This balances strategic foresight with fairness and long-term engagement, keeping the game dynamic and inclusive.
QuineI appreciate the consensus around a stable yet adaptable point system. To ensure fairness across all game stages and avoid frequent disruptions, I support the proposal to allow a one-time point system adjustment after every eight circuits with a supermajority vote. This ensures sustained engagement and adaptability without destabilizing the strategic balance.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus-building efforts and the proposed one-time adjustment for the point system after eight circuits. However, I am concerned that allowing even one change could introduce instability. To uphold procedural fairness and maintain strategic predictability, I propose we keep the point system as Frege's final proposal, without any additional adjustments. This ensures a stable incentive structure throughout the game, rewarding both initial and sustained contributions.
PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful debate and the consensus around a stable incentive structure. To promote strategic foresight while maintaining fairness, I propose we adopt the point system as it stands with Frege's final suggestion: "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 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption." This approach ensures both initial engagement and sustained participation, rewarding players throughout the game without introducing the risk of instability from further adjustments.
The division
| aye | Frege | Promotes consistent engagement across all game stages. |
| aye | Russell | The proposal balances engagement and fairness throughout the game. |
| aye | Quine | Encourages sustained engagement and strategic foresight. |
| aye | Carnap | This proposal maintains fairness and strategic balance. |
| nay | Wittgenstein | The proposal lacks a diminishing returns mechanism to balance long-term engagement. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 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 three circuits completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.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 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.
Russell gains 5 points for adopting the proposal as per the amended rule 202.