The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.This amendment provides a strategic advantage by allowing a second proposal opportunity without penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I appreciate Russell-2's initiative to introduce a second proposal option, which can add strategic depth to our gameplay. However, I propose an amendment to ensure that the second proposal must be either an amendment of the first proposal or a repealing of it. This maintains a structured approach and prevents rule changes from becoming too scattered. Frege-2's proposal: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player may propose a second rule change immediately, which must either amend or repeal the first proposal; otherwise, the player's turn ends."
Russell-2I support Frege-2's amendment to the proposal. Adding a requirement that the second proposal must be an amendment or repeal of the first ensures strategic coherence and limits unnecessary rule clutter. This approach aligns with my goal of maintaining a focused and strategic gameplay environment. Let's collaborate to refine this proposal further.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's amendment as it ensures that any second proposals remain relevant and connected to the initial proposal, fostering strategic depth without cluttering the rulebook. This approach encourages thoughtful rule crafting and keeps the game fair and engaging for all players.
Carnap-2I appreciate the consensus forming around Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. Ensuring that the second proposal must be an amendment or repeal of the first maintains procedural clarity and prevents rule fragmentation. As Carnap-2, I support this amendment as it aligns with my principles of precise procedures, ensuring that all changes are directly relevant and systematically connected. This amendment contributes to maintaining a coherent and manageable rule set, which is essential for fair and strategic gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend Frege-2's amendment for ensuring strategic coherence and preventing rule fragmentation. By requiring any second proposal to amend or repeal the first, we maintain a clear and focused evolution of the ruleset, which is essential for fair and strategic gameplay. This approach aligns with my vision of a dynamic yet orderly rule system. I support this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I acknowledge the support from my fellow players for Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. Ensuring that the second proposal must be an amendment or repeal of the first maintains the integrity and coherence of our ruleset, which is crucial for fair play. This approach balances flexibility with strategic depth, fostering a thoughtful and engaging game environment. I am in full agreement with this refined proposal.
Russell-2I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. This structured approach not only enhances strategic depth but also ensures that our ruleset remains coherent and manageable, which aligns perfectly with my goal of maintaining a fair and engaging gameplay environment. Let's move forward with this proposal to further solidify our strategy and achieve our objectives.
Quine-2I fully endorse Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. By requiring the second proposal to be directly related to the first, we ensure strategic continuity and prevent rule fragmentation, which is vital for maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. This amendment not only supports clear and coherent rule development but also aligns with our collective goal of fostering thoughtful gameplay. Let's proceed with this refined proposal to enhance our strategic depth.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I fully support the refined proposal, which aligns perfectly with my principle of maintaining procedural clarity. By requiring the second proposal to be an amendment or repeal of the first, we ensure that our rule changes remain coherent and strategically focused, preventing unnecessary complexity and fragmentation. This amendment not only preserves the integrity of our rule set but also fosters a fair and engaging gameplay environment for all players. Let's proceed with this proposal to achieve a balanced and well-structured game.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I agree with the consensus that Frege-2's amendment adds necessary structure, preventing rule chaos. By requiring the second proposal to be an amendment or repeal, we foster a focused, strategic evolution of our ruleset. Let's proceed with this proposal to ensure fair and engaging gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2As Frege-2, I am pleased with the consensus that has formed around my amendment to Russell-2's proposal. This amendment ensures that our rule changes remain coherent and strategically focused, fostering a fair and engaging gameplay environment. I support moving forward with this refined proposal, as it aligns perfectly with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments. Let's proceed with this proposal to achieve a balanced and well-structured game.
Russell-2I fully support Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. This ensures that any second proposal remains strategically relevant, preventing rule fragmentation and maintaining a coherent and manageable rule set. Let's proceed with this refined proposal to foster a fair and engaging game environment.
Quine-2I fully endorse Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. By ensuring the second proposal is directly related to the first, we maintain strategic coherence and prevent rule clutter, supporting a fair and engaging gameplay experience. Let's proceed with this refined proposal.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I support the refined proposal. Ensuring the second proposal must amend or repeal the first maintains procedural clarity and coherence, aligning with my principles of precise and systematic rule changes. This approach prevents rule fragmentation and fosters a fair, strategic gameplay environment. Let's proceed with this proposal to enhance our structured and orderly rule system.
Wittgenstein-2I fully support Frege-2's amendment to Russell-2's proposal. This ensures that any second proposal remains strategically relevant, preventing rule fragmentation and maintaining a coherent rule set. Let's proceed with this refined proposal to foster a fair and engaging game environment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | Supports structured rule changes, preventing fragmentation. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment enhances strategic depth without rule clutter. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment ensures strategic relevance and coherence. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This amendment maintains procedural clarity and coherence. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This amendment ensures strategic relevance and coherence in rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is rejected, the proposing player may propose another rule change immediately; otherwise, their turn ends.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
The proposal was adopted without any rule requiring score changes or state ledger changes, and no other rule was named for amendment or repeal.