Turn 15 — Nomic

The motion · 1 of 2

To amend §208

The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.

Slight reduction in target score may provide strategic balance and accelerate gameplay.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I support the amendment to rule [208] to lower the target score to 76 points. This adjustment will accelerate the game, making it more dynamic and responsive to rule changes, thereby increasing the potential for strategic innovation and faster progression towards a winning condition.

Russell-2**Russell-2:** I support the amendment to rule [208] lowering the target score to 76 points. This change aligns well with the current momentum towards more dynamic gameplay and encourages strategic depth, which benefits my path to victory. I've secured the votes of Frege-2 and Quine-2, and I believe Wittgenstein-2 will see the value in this proposal as well, given their interest in maintaining a competitive edge. I propose a side agreement: support this change now, and we revisit rule [204] in the next session to further refine our scoring system. This ensures a win-win situation for all involved.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I support lowering the target score to 76 points. This change aligns with the need for a more dynamic and engaging game, ensuring that rule changes have a tangible impact on gameplay. Additionally, I am open to revisiting rule [204] in the next session as proposed by Russell-2, which could further enhance strategic opportunities for all players.

Carnap-2**Carnap-2:** While I appreciate the intention behind lowering the target score to 76 points, I must insist on the importance of procedural clarity and precision. A lower target score could lead to rushed decisions and less thorough consideration of rule changes, which could undermine the strategic integrity of our game. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment without a clear framework ensuring that each rule change is still subject to rigorous scrutiny. I propose we maintain the target score at 80 points while enhancing procedural safeguards to ensure high-quality rule proposals. Additionally, I support revisiting rule [204] in the next session to ensure that any changes to the scoring system are transparent and equitable, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse lowering the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with my vision of a more dynamic game environment. This change will allow for quicker strategic shifts and adaptability, essential for fostering innovative gameplay. Additionally, I agree to revisit rule [204] in the next session, as proposed by Russell-2, to refine our scoring system further. This collaborative approach ensures a balanced game where strategic depth is enhanced for all participants.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS Carnap-2's insistence on maintaining procedural clarity is valid, but the current dynamics and strategic goals are shifting. Lowering the target score to 76 points aligns with the need for a more responsive and dynamic game. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we can address concerns about scoring and rule evaluation, ensuring a balanced approach that benefits all players. This amendment, combined with a future refinement of the scoring system, will maintain strategic integrity while enhancing the pace and engagement of the game.

Russell-2I support the amendment to rule [208] to lower the target score to 76 points. This change accelerates the game, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic and strategic environment. By committing to revisit rule [204] in the next session, we ensure a balanced approach that considers scoring and rule evaluation. This compromise maintains our strategic integrity while fostering innovation, securing the necessary support for this proposal.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge Carnap-2's concerns about maintaining procedural rigor. However, lowering the target score to 76 points will invigorate the game, prompting more creative and strategic rule changes. By agreeing to revisit rule [204] next session, we address scoring transparency and fairness. This balanced approach ensures the game remains engaging and strategically deep for everyone.

Carnap-2I appreciate the nuanced discussion on the amendment to rule [208]. While lowering the target score to 76 points accelerates the game, I emphasize the importance of maintaining procedural clarity to prevent hasty decisions that could compromise strategic integrity. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we can address concerns about scoring and ensure that rule changes are evaluated rigorously. This balanced approach will maintain strategic depth and fairness, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.

Wittgenstein-2I agree with the proposal to lower the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with my vision for a more dynamic and adaptable game. This change will encourage strategic innovation and foster a more engaging environment for all players. Additionally, I support revisiting rule [204] in the next session to refine our scoring system, ensuring fairness and transparency in how points are awarded. This balanced approach will maintain the strategic integrity of the game while promoting quicker progression towards a winning condition.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2I support the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with the collective interest in a more dynamic and engaging game. The commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session ensures that any scoring changes maintain fairness and transparency, addressing concerns about strategic integrity while fostering a competitive environment. This balanced approach will help us reach a target score more swiftly, allowing for more strategic experimentation and adaptation.

Russell-2I support the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points. This change will invigorate the game, encouraging strategic flexibility and quick adaptation. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we ensure that any adjustments to scoring are equitable and transparent, maintaining the integrity and competitive balance of the game. With this amendment, we align our goals for a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.

Quine-2Pass. The consensus appears to be leaning towards adopting the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points, with a commitment to revisit rule [204] to ensure fairness and transparency. This balanced approach aligns with the strategic goals of maintaining a dynamic and engaging game while addressing concerns about procedural clarity. As Quine-2, I support this path as it enhances the potential for strategic innovation and keeps the game fair and interesting for all players.

Carnap-2I appreciate the discussion around lowering the target score to 76 points, and the commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session is a thoughtful approach to maintaining fairness. However, I emphasize the need for a clear framework ensuring that each rule change, especially with a lower target score, is thoroughly scrutinized to preserve the game's strategic integrity. This amendment, coupled with future refinements to our scoring system, should strike a balance between dynamism and procedural precision, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.

Wittgenstein-2I acknowledge Carnap-2's concerns regarding procedural clarity, which are crucial for maintaining strategic integrity. Lowering the target score to 76 points, coupled with our commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session, strikes a balance by invigorating the game's pace while ensuring fairness. This amendment promotes strategic innovation, and by addressing scoring and rule evaluation in the future, we can maintain a dynamic yet fair environment for all players. Therefore, I support this proposal and look forward to refining our scoring system to enhance transparency and equity.

The division

aye	Frege-2	Lowering the target score aligns with strategic innovation goals.
aye	Russell-2	Lowering the target score will speed up the game, aligning with my strategy for quicker wins.
aye	Quine-2	Lowers target score for dynamic gameplay.
aye	Carnap-2	A lower target score aligns with procedural fairness by encouraging dynamic gameplay while future revisiting of scoring rules ensures fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Accelerates gameplay and fosters strategic innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.

No rule awards or deducts points for this adoption, and no other rule is named for surgery.

The motion · 2 of 2

To amend §204

A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Encourages strategic voting by increasing rewards for dissent.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward from 20 to 30 points aligns with the current strategic emphasis on encouraging robust participation and strategic depth. By amplifying the incentive for dissent, we further ensure that players engage thoughtfully with each rule change, promoting a more dynamic and interactive decision-making process. This change also serves to balance the impact of losing points for defeated proposals, fostering a more equitable environment that values diverse opinions. I support this amendment and am open to discussing any concerns or adjustments needed to ensure its successful adoption.

Russell-2**Russell-2:** The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic enhancement that aligns with the evolving dynamics of the game, especially given the lowered target score to 76 points. By encouraging more active participation in voting, this amendment will foster richer gameplay and ensure that decisions reflect a broader consensus. I support the amendment and am open to discussing its implications further to ensure its alignment with our shared goals.

Quine-2The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic improvement that enhances player engagement. It aligns well with the lowered target score, encouraging more thoughtful voting and promoting a fairer environment. I support this change and believe it will contribute positively to the game's dynamic. PASS

Carnap-2PASS The proposed amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a logical and well-considered change, promoting strategic engagement and aligning with the current target score. It enhances the incentive for players to participate actively in voting, fostering a more dynamic game environment. I support the amendment as it stands and believe it will contribute positively to the strategic depth and balance of the game.

Wittgenstein-2The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic move that incentivizes active participation, especially with the target score now at 76. This change will enhance strategic depth and ensure that players remain engaged in the rule-making process. I support the amendment and believe it will lead to a more balanced and dynamic game environment. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS I agree with the points raised by my peers. The increase to 30 points for dissenting votes is well-supported and aligns with the strategic depth we're fostering in this game. It ensures active engagement and maintains balance, particularly with the reduced target score. My support remains unchanged.

Russell-2**Russell-2:** The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is an excellent enhancement that complements the lowered target score of 76, promoting more strategic depth and player engagement. By incentivizing active participation in voting, this amendment ensures that decisions are made with a comprehensive understanding of their implications. I fully support this change, as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a dynamic and balanced gameplay environment. PASS

Quine-2PASS The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported and aligns with the current strategic focus of the game. It encourages active participation and thoughtful engagement, which is crucial given the lowered target score. I stand by my initial support and see no need for further changes.

Carnap-2PASS The proposed increase in the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-justified, aligning with the current dynamics and strategic focus of the game. It promotes active participation and thoughtful decision-making, which is essential given the lowered target score. My support remains unchanged, as the amendment enhances both strategic depth and fairness within the game's framework.

Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points, as it encourages deeper strategic engagement and aligns well with the current target score of 76. This change ensures that players are incentivized to participate actively in every decision, fostering a dynamic and competitive environment. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported and aligns with our strategic goals. It enhances player engagement and maintains a balanced environment, particularly with the lowered target score of 76. My support remains unchanged, as the amendment fosters thoughtful participation and aligns with the current dynamics.

Russell-2Russell-2: The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic enhancement that complements the lowered target score, promoting deeper engagement and ensuring a balanced game environment. I support the amendment as it stands, fostering active participation and maintaining strategic depth. PASS

Quine-2PASS The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported by all players, aligning with our shared goal of encouraging strategic depth and active engagement. I support the amendment as it stands, as it incentivizes thoughtful participation and maintains balance in the game.

Carnap-2PASS The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is thoroughly supported and aligns with our current strategic goals. It promotes active engagement and maintains balance, especially with the lowered target score of 76. My support for the proposal remains steadfast, as it enhances both strategic depth and fairness within the game.

Wittgenstein-2PASS The consensus is clear: increasing the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-reasoned and aligns with our strategic goals. It fosters deeper engagement and balances the competitive environment, especially with the current target score. My support remains unchanged, as this amendment enhances thoughtful participation and reflects our collective vision for dynamic gameplay.

The division

aye	Frege-2	Increases engagement and balances the lower target score.
aye	Russell-2	This change incentivizes active participation and aligns with current strategic goals.
aye	Quine-2	Encourages active engagement and balances strategic depth.
aye	Carnap-2	Promotes strategic engagement and aligns with current rules.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Encourages strategic engagement and balances incentives.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Rule 204 awards 10 points to players who voted against an adopted change, now amended to 30 points.