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 as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.This amendment encourages continued innovation while resetting incentives to maintain balanced competition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to adjust the point structure for adopted rule changes, as it aims to maintain strategic depth. However, 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change." This adjustment ensures a balanced point gain and more frequent resets, fostering sustained engagement.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to lower the base points and adjust the reset threshold, as it could enhance engagement by rewarding early-game strategy. To build on both Frege and Russell's ideas, I propose 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change." This balances sustained engagement with strategic depth throughout the game.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from both Frege and Russell. While I see the value in adjusting the point system to foster early engagement and strategic depth, I propose a slight modification to balance both ideas: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change." This adjustment maintains a dynamic point system that encourages consistent participation and strategic foresight.
CarnapI appreciate the insightful discussion and the collaborative spirit in seeking a balanced amendment to [202]. However, I'm concerned that the current proposals might disproportionately reward late-game players, potentially skewing strategic planning. To ensure fairness and sustained strategic engagement throughout the game, I propose we adopt the following 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, and a diminishing returns system applies, reducing additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption in a given game." This amendment aims to balance early and late-game strategies, rewarding consistent engagement while preventing runaway point accumulation.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the efforts to refine the point system, and I see merit in encouraging sustained strategic engagement. To ensure fairness and balance, I propose we incorporate an impartial review mechanism into the 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, and a diminishing returns system applies, reducing additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption. An impartial review process will ensure consistent application and fairness of these rules throughout the game." This adjustment promotes consistent and fair play while encouraging strategic depth.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative proposals and the thoughtful consideration of sustaining strategic engagement. To further enhance fairness, I suggest incorporating a periodic review process into the 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, and a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures the rules are applied consistently and fairly." This approach balances strategic depth with fairness, ensuring all players are on equal footing.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive proposals and the collaborative spirit in seeking a fair and balanced amendment to [202]. Building on Wittgenstein's suggestion for an impartial review and Frege's periodic review, I propose the following refinement: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, and a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by an impartial panel." This ensures strategic depth while maintaining fairness throughout the game.
QuineI appreciate the efforts to ensure fairness and sustained engagement through the proposed amendments. To further balance strategic opportunities for all players, I propose adding a "strategic foresight" clause to the 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by an impartial panel, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game." This adjustment aims to reward innovative thinking and strategic planning, ensuring a dynamic and engaging experience for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from all, particularly the focus on fairness and strategic depth. To build on this, I suggest including a clause that mandates clarity in what constitutes "significantly enhancing" strategic depth: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by an impartial panel, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game, with clear criteria documented at the start." This ensures transparency and prevents disputes over what qualifies for the bonus.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative refinement of Carnap's proposal to define what constitutes "significantly enhancing" the strategic depth. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest adding a clause for regular documentation and examples of past enhancements: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by an impartial panel, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game, with clear criteria documented at the start, including examples from past games to guide future decisions." This will help maintain transparency and consistency in awarding bonuses.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the comprehensive approach to refining rule [202], particularly the inclusion of clear criteria and examples for strategic foresight bonuses. However, to further enhance fairness and prevent strategic manipulation, I propose adding a clause that ensures the periodic review panel is rotated among players, preventing any one player from consistently influencing outcomes. This would look like: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by a rotating impartial panel of players, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game, with clear criteria documented at the start, including examples from past games to guide future decisions." This amendment ensures transparency and equitable influence throughout the game.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in developing this comprehensive amendment to [202]. To enhance fairness and prevent strategic manipulation, 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 points as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by a rotating impartial panel of players, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game, with clear criteria documented at the start, including examples from past games. Additionally, to ensure the impartial panel's decisions remain unbiased, let's include a rule where panel members abstain from voting on any rule changes they previously proposed or debated, maintaining the integrity of the review process." This ensures a fair and transparent game environment for all players.
QuineI appreciate the thoroughness of this proposal, particularly the mechanisms for fairness and strategic depth. However, to ensure consistent understanding and application of the "strategic foresight" bonus, I propose adding a preliminary discussion phase before voting, where players can clarify the potential strategic impacts of proposed changes. This would look like: "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 as follows: 3 base points plus 1 additional point for each rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change, a diminishing returns system reduces additional points by 0.5 for every subsequent rule change beyond the 10th adoption, a periodic review after every 5th turn ensures consistent application and fairness, overseen by a rotating impartial panel of players, and a strategic foresight bonus of 1 point is awarded for proposals that significantly enhance the strategic depth of the game, with clear criteria documented at the start, including examples from past games to guide future decisions. A preliminary discussion phase is included before voting to allow players to clarify potential strategic impacts, ensuring informed decision-making." This adjustment promotes transparency and informed decision-making, enhancing the strategic integrity of the game.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive proposals from all, especially the emphasis on clarity and fairness in rule application. To strengthen the amendment, I suggest explicitly stating that the rotating panel must include players who have not participated in the last two reviews, preventing any potential biases from reappearing. This would ensure the integrity of the review process and maintain fairness throughout the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoroughness of the proposals and the emphasis on fairness and strategic depth. To enhance the impartiality and consistency of the review process, I propose adding a clause that requires the rotating panel to include a player with no prior involvement in the rule change under review. This ensures unbiased oversight and maintains the integrity of the game. Let's proceed with this refinement for a balanced and equitable gaming experience.
The division
| aye | Frege | This amendment balances early and sustained strategic engagement. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances strategic depth and fairness with a clear reset mechanism. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal balances fairness and strategic depth effectively. |
| nay | Carnap | I prefer a proposal with clearer fairness mechanisms. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal fosters sustained engagement and strategic depth. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 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 points as follows: 4 base points plus an additional point for each new rule change adopted beyond the first in a given game, up to a maximum of 2 additional 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 points as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.
Russell gains 5 points for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.