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 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.Encourages consensus building by rewarding aye votes, enhancing collaborative play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to streamline point acquisition by focusing on consensus, which aligns with our shared goal of encouraging collaborative play. However, to ensure sustained strategic engagement, I suggest modifying the extra points system to award 1 point for each aye vote only if a majority of players vote aye. This adjustment would still incentivize consensus while maintaining a competitive edge by requiring substantial support for the full bonus, thus encouraging thoughtful and well-debated proposals.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful suggestion to adjust the point system by awarding extra points only when a majority supports the proposal. This ensures that our game remains both competitive and collaborative, encouraging players to craft proposals that are well-considered and broadly appealing. To enhance this balance, I propose an additional refinement: if a proposal receives unanimous aye votes, the proposing player should receive an extra 2 points as a bonus for achieving complete consensus. This would further incentivize players to build consensus while rewarding those who can align the group’s interests effectively.
QuineI appreciate Russell's idea to reward unanimous consensus with additional points, which can encourage players to strive for complete agreement. To ensure that this doesn't overly skew the game in favor of those who might manipulate consensus-building, I propose adding a safeguard: if a player receives this bonus three times consecutively, their next bonus is halved. This maintains the incentive for consensus without allowing repetitive exploitation of the rule.
CarnapI appreciate Quine's proposal for adding a safeguard to prevent potential exploitation of the consensus bonus system. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I suggest an additional modification: if a player receives a unanimous bonus, the next round’s base points are reduced by 1, balancing the advantage of achieving consensus with a slight challenge in the subsequent turn. This encourages players to maintain strategic foresight across multiple turns rather than relying solely on consensus.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's proposal to balance the consensus bonus with a reduction in base points for the following turn, as it adds an interesting dynamic to strategic planning. To further refine this balance, I suggest that the base point reduction only applies if the player also received a consensus bonus in the previous turn, ensuring that players are rewarded for achieving broad agreement without penalizing those who are simply maintaining momentum. This approach encourages thoughtful proposal development while maintaining fair competition.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive contributions from all players, particularly the proposed safeguards against potential exploitation of the consensus bonus system. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose an additional modification: if a player achieves two consecutive unanimous bonuses, the subsequent base point reduction should increase to 2 for their next turn. This adjustment maintains the incentive for reaching consensus while ensuring a balanced challenge in maintaining strategic diversity across multiple turns.
RussellI appreciate the evolving proposal for balancing consensus incentives with strategic challenges. To further refine this balance, I suggest implementing a sliding scale for base point reduction: if a player receives a unanimous bonus three times in a row, the next base point reduction is 3; for four times, it increases to 4. This gradual increase ensures that the bonus system remains appealing while preventing prolonged exploitation and encouraging varied strategic approaches. Additionally, let's consider providing a small bonus for players who receive at least one nay vote in every turn, promoting diverse perspectives and debate.
QuineI appreciate the suggestion to reward players who receive at least one nay vote in every turn, as it promotes a diversity of opinions and enriches the game's strategic landscape. To complement this, I propose adding a condition: if a player receives a unanimous bonus but also garners at least one nay vote in their subsequent turn, they receive an additional point as a reward for maintaining engagement and encouraging varied perspectives. This adjustment incentivizes players to balance consensus-building with fostering a healthy debate, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players to balance consensus incentives with strategic diversity and fairness. To further refine this, I propose adding a rule that allows players who receive a nay vote in three consecutive turns to earn a "diversity bonus" of 2 points, promoting continuous engagement and varied perspectives. This ensures that the game values both consensus and constructive dissent.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals to reward both consensus and diversity of opinion. To further balance the dynamics, I suggest that the "diversity bonus" for receiving a nay vote in three consecutive turns should reset if a player receives a unanimous bonus in any of those turns. This ensures that players are encouraged to strive for both broad support and engagement with differing perspectives, maintaining a dynamic and competitive environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the evolving discourse and the balanced approach to integrating both consensus and diversity rewards. To further refine this proposal and ensure sustained strategic engagement, I suggest that the "diversity bonus" be capped at twice per game per player, preventing excessive exploitation while still valuing diverse opinions. This ensures that the game rewards strategic thinking and adaptability, maintaining an equilibrium between collaboration and individual ingenuity.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal and the balance it seeks to achieve between consensus and diversity. To further enhance strategic depth, I propose that the sliding scale for base point reduction and diversity bonuses are applied progressively, encouraging players to adapt their strategies over time. This would ensure the game remains dynamic and engaging, rewarding both collaborative efforts and individual strategic adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the collective effort to balance consensus incentives with strategic diversity. To further refine this proposal, I suggest that the progressive sliding scale for base point reduction be implemented only after a player accumulates three unanimous bonuses. This ensures that the bonus system remains appealing and fair, encouraging players to maintain varied strategic approaches without prematurely penalizing consistent consensus-building. Additionally, let's consider integrating a mechanism where players can earn a "strategic foresight" bonus of 1 point if they propose a rule change that is adopted in three consecutive turns, promoting thoughtful long-term planning.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful integration of both consensus and strategic foresight incentives. To further refine this proposal, I suggest introducing a "strategic foresight" bonus of 1 point for players who propose a rule change that is adopted in three consecutive turns, promoting thoughtful long-term planning. This would encourage players to craft proposals with foresight while balancing the game's dynamic nature.
WittgensteinI appreciate the nuanced proposals that integrate both consensus-building and strategic foresight. To further enhance strategic depth while maintaining fairness, I propose an additional rule: if a player receives the "strategic foresight" bonus, they must skip the next debate phase. This encourages thoughtful planning and provides a brief respite to contemplate future moves, ensuring the game remains dynamic and strategically engaging.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal promotes consensus, aligning with our strategic goals. |
| aye | Russell | Encourages consensus-building, aligns with strategic goals |
| aye | Quine | Encourages consensus and strategic engagement, aligning with fair play. |
| aye | Carnap | Encourages consensus and aligns with procedural fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal incentivizes consensus, aligning with strategic engagement and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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 4 base points, plus 2 points for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, with a maximum of 4 points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change.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 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.
Russell gains 3 base points for adoption and 5 additional points for 5 aye votes, totaling 8 points.