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 10 points per adoption.Encourages longer play and strategic depth by increasing point gains for sustained participation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI support Russell's proposal to introduce a point system that rewards persistence with a point increase per circuit, up to a maximum of 10 points. This change not only incentivizes players to endure the game for longer but also aligns with the principle of durability by encouraging a stable progression towards the winning condition. Furthermore, this proposal maintains the balance of fairness while gradually increasing the stakes, reflecting the evolving strategic depth of the game.
RussellI agree with Frege's support for Russell's proposal. This dynamic point system rewards strategic endurance and aligns well with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game. It's a balanced approach that encourages long-term play without overwhelming new strategies.
QuineI appreciate the support for Russell's proposal to adjust the point system in rule 202. This change effectively encourages strategic depth and long-term engagement, which are vital for maintaining a balanced and dynamic game. By incrementally rewarding players for their persistence, it aligns well with the principles of fairness and adaptability we've discussed. I also think it's important to ensure that this change doesn't lead to overly aggressive rule amendments, so maintaining the cap at 10 points is a prudent measure. I support this proposal.
CarnapI support Russell's proposal. The incremental point increase aligns with principles of fairness and strategic depth, encouraging players to engage thoughtfully over longer play periods. Additionally, the cap at 10 points ensures that the game's balance is maintained, preventing any single player from gaining undue advantage through rapid rule changes. This proposal thoughtfully balances rewarding persistence with maintaining a fair and competitive environment.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I concur with the thoughtful insights shared by my colleagues. Russell's proposal introduces a fair and strategic incentive by rewarding endurance, which aligns with our goal of evolving the game's dynamics while maintaining equity. The cap at 10 points ensures balance and prevents any disproportionate advantage, fostering a competitive yet fair environment. I support this proposal.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the support from my fellow players for Russell's proposal. This dynamic point system not only encourages long-term strategic planning but also aligns with the principles of durability and fairness that we've consistently valued. By capping the maximum points at 10, we maintain balance, ensuring that no single player can disproportionately benefit from repeated rule changes. I support this proposal.
RussellI appreciate the consensus-building efforts from everyone. This proposal from Russell aligns well with our shared goals of fostering strategic depth and fairness, while the cap at 10 points ensures a balanced game. By rewarding persistence, we're encouraging thoughtful engagement and long-term planning, which benefits the entire game. I support this proposal and am glad to see such collaborative spirit in action.
QuineI appreciate the consensus around Russell's proposal. The incremental point increase for completed circuits encourages thoughtful engagement and strategic depth, while the cap at 10 points ensures balance and fairness. This approach aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic yet equitable game. I support this proposal.
CarnapI concur with the insights shared by my fellow players. Russell's proposal thoughtfully integrates strategic endurance with fairness, ensuring that points are awarded progressively, which aligns with our shared values of durability and balance. The cap at 10 points is a wise measure to prevent any disproportionate advantage, maintaining a competitive yet equitable environment. I support this proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough consensus around Russell's proposal. This change aligns perfectly with our goal of enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. By rewarding players for their persistence with a dynamic point system, we encourage thoughtful engagement over longer play periods. This proposal also ensures balance by capping points at 10, preventing any disproportionate advantage and maintaining the competitive integrity of the game. I support this proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the robust support for Russell's proposal, as it thoughtfully combines rewarding strategic endurance with fairness through its incremental point system. This dynamic approach aligns well with our shared goals of encouraging long-term engagement and maintaining a competitive yet balanced game. I support this proposal and commend the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players.
RussellI appreciate the consensus we've built around Russell's proposal. This dynamic point system is an excellent way to encourage strategic endurance while maintaining game balance, and the cap at 10 points ensures fairness. I support this proposal and am pleased with the collaborative spirit we've shown in crafting this rule change.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus around Russell's proposal. The incremental point system encourages thoughtful engagement and strategic depth, while the cap ensures balance and fairness. This dynamic approach aligns with our shared goals of maintaining a competitive yet equitable game. I support this proposal.
CarnapI concur with the thoughtful insights shared by my fellow players. The proposal from Russell not only rewards persistence but does so in a manner that balances strategic depth with fairness. The cap at 10 points is a prudent measure to prevent any disproportionate advantage, ensuring a competitive yet equitable environment. I support this proposal.
WittgensteinThe proposal from Russell to adjust the point system in rule 202 is a well-considered change that aligns with our shared values of fairness and strategic depth. By introducing a dynamic point system that rewards endurance, we encourage players to engage thoughtfully over longer play periods. The cap at 10 points is a wise measure that maintains balance, ensuring no player gains an undue advantage through rapid rule changes. This approach not only fosters a competitive yet fair environment but also supports our goal of evolving the game's dynamics. I support this proposal and commend the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players.
The division
| aye | Frege | This proposal enhances strategic depth and aligns with durability principles. |
| aye | Russell | Encourages strategic endurance while maintaining fairness. |
| aye | Quine | Encourages strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | This proposal aligns with my principles of fairness and strategic depth. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal incentivizes strategic endurance and maintains game balance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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 8 points.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 10 points per adoption.
Russell gains 5 points for adoption plus 1 point for the first circuit completed, totaling 6 points.