Turn 17 — Nomic

The motion · 1 of 2

To amend §209

The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.

Reducing the mutable rule cap encourages more strategic rule changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposal to reduce the cap to 18 mutable rules aims to limit excessive rule churn and promote more deliberate, thoughtful rule changes. By tightening this limit, we encourage players to focus on the quality and impact of each rule amendment, fostering a more stable and strategic environment. This approach aligns with my preference for measured amendments and should help maintain durable institutions within our game. Let's discuss potential benefits or concerns before finalizing this proposal.

Russell-2**Russell-2:** Frege-2's proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules is an interesting strategy, but I'm concerned it might overly restrict our ability to adapt as the game progresses. I would prefer to keep it at 20 to allow for sufficient flexibility and strategic depth. However, I'm open to negotiating a middle ground. How about we set the cap at 19? This would maintain some room for adaptation while still encouraging thoughtful rule changes. Let's find a balance that works for everyone.

Quine-2I appreciate Frege-2's proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules, aiming to promote thoughtful amendments and stability. However, I agree with Russell-2 that a cap of 18 might be too restrictive, potentially stifling our ability to adapt strategically as the game unfolds. A compromise at 19 mutable rules could strike a balance, allowing for enough flexibility while still encouraging careful consideration of each rule change. This adjustment would maintain a dynamic yet manageable ruleset, supporting both strategic depth and adaptability. Let's aim for a cap of 19.

Carnap-2PASS I acknowledge the concerns about excessive restriction, yet the proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules indeed fosters more strategic depth. However, a compromise at 19 mutable rules could maintain the balance between adaptability and stability. I support the proposed compromise to set the cap at 19, as it aligns with the principles of measured amendment and strategic foresight. This adjustment will ensure that our ruleset remains both dynamic and manageable. Let's proceed with this consensus.

Wittgenstein-2I support Quine-2's proposal for a cap of 19 mutable rules. This adjustment strikes a fair balance between encouraging thoughtful amendments and allowing enough flexibility to adapt strategically as the game progresses. It maintains both stability and adaptability, fostering a dynamic yet manageable ruleset. Let's proceed with this consensus.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This compromise maintains a balance between fostering thoughtful amendments and allowing strategic flexibility. Let's move forward with this adjustment, ensuring a stable yet adaptable ruleset.

Russell-2Russell-2: I'm glad we've reached a consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This balance will ensure we maintain a dynamic but stable ruleset, allowing for strategic depth while preventing excessive churn. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Quine-2PASS I agree that setting the mutable rule cap at 19 strikes a good balance between allowing strategic flexibility and ensuring thoughtful, deliberate rule changes. Let's proceed with this proposal.

Carnap-2PASS I support the compromise to set the cap at 19 mutable rules, as it strikes a balance between flexibility and stability in our ruleset. Let's proceed with the proposed amendment.

Wittgenstein-2PASS As Wittgenstein-2, I see value in the compromise to set the mutable rule cap at 19. It strikes a balance between fostering thoughtful amendments and maintaining enough flexibility for strategic depth, ensuring our game remains dynamic yet manageable. Let's proceed with this consensus.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Frege-2: I concur with the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19, as it aligns with my preference for durable institutions through measured amendments. This balance ensures strategic depth while maintaining a stable ruleset. Let's adopt this proposal.

Russell-2PASS As Russell-2, I recognize the consensus has been effectively reached on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This maintains a balanced dynamic between fostering thoughtful amendments and allowing sufficient strategic adaptability. Let's proceed with adopting this proposal.

Quine-2Pass. I acknowledge the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19, which strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. This compromise aligns with maintaining strategic depth while allowing for thoughtful amendments. Let's move forward with this agreed-upon amendment.

Carnap-2I support the proposal to amend rule [209] to set the mutable rule cap at 19. This balance encourages strategic depth while maintaining flexibility, aligning with the principles of measured amendment and stability. Let's adopt this well-supported consensus.

Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I fully endorse the proposal to set the mutable rule cap at 19. This compromise fosters thoughtful amendments while maintaining the strategic flexibility necessary to adapt as the game evolves. It strikes a balance that supports both stability and dynamism in our ruleset, ensuring we can pursue innovative strategies without excessive churn. Let's proceed with this consensus, as it aligns with my vision for a game that evolves thoughtfully and strategically.

The division

nay	Frege-2	Supports the consensus to set the cap at 19.
abstain	Russell-2	The proposal is a revised version of a previously defeated change.
aye	Quine-2	The compromise to set the cap at 19 balances stability with flexibility.
aye	Carnap-2	The compromise at 19 mutable rules maintains a balance between strategic flexibility and stability.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	Supports the consensus to set the cap at 19.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

As engrossed

Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.

No rule awards or deducts points for this proposal's adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger, nor does it perform surgery on another rule.

The motion · 2 of 2

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.

This ensures strategic depth while maintaining balance by requiring consensus for additional proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2As Frege-2, I see the potential benefits of this amendment to rule [202] in fostering strategic depth and ensuring that a second proposal is not frivolous. However, requiring unanimous consent from all other players may unduly restrict a player's ability to adapt their strategy mid-turn, particularly if a single player opposes for tactical reasons unrelated to the proposal's merit. A more balanced approach might involve lowering the threshold for consent, perhaps a simple majority, to allow for more flexibility while still ensuring that a second proposal is deliberate and has some degree of support. This modification would promote strategic diversity without overly constraining players. Frege-2: I appreciate the intent behind requiring unanimous consent for a second proposal, but I suggest modifying the amendment to require only a simple majority of the other players' consent. This adjustment would maintain strategic depth while allowing players more freedom to adapt their plans.

Russell-2As Russell-2, I recognize Frege-2's concerns about the potential for a single player to block a second proposal, which could indeed hinder strategic adaptability. However, lowering the threshold to a simple majority could lead to frequent second proposals, reducing the significance of the initial proposal and potentially prolonging turns unnecessarily. To strike a balance, I propose a compromise: require a two-thirds majority for a second proposal. This ensures that the second proposal has substantial support, reflecting a genuine need for reconsideration, while still providing enough flexibility for players to adapt their strategies. This threshold is higher than a simple majority but less restrictive than unanimity, promoting thoughtful decision-making without overly constraining players. I will support Frege-2's proposal if this amendment is incorporated.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the discussion around the threshold for proposing a second rule change. While I recognize the need for strategic flexibility, I also understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of each proposal. A two-thirds majority strikes a reasonable balance, ensuring that a second proposal is not made lightly, yet allowing for necessary adaptations. This threshold reflects a substantial consensus without being overly restrictive, promoting thoughtful and strategic gameplay. I support Russell-2's compromise and Frege-2's proposal with this amendment.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: As Carnap-2, I appreciate the nuanced discussion around the threshold for a second proposal. While a two-thirds majority is a reasonable compromise, it is essential to ensure that the rule is precisely stated to avoid any ambiguity. I propose a slight refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the consent of at least two-thirds of the other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends." This wording clarifies that the consent is required from the other players, not all players, aligning with the proceduralist principle of precise language. I support Frege-2's proposal with this refinement.

Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I concur with Carnap-2's refined proposal. The two-thirds majority requirement ensures that a second proposal is supported by a significant portion of the players, promoting thoughtful strategy without being overly restrictive. This amendment strikes a balance between flexibility and deliberation, fostering a dynamic yet structured game environment. I support Frege-2's proposal with Carnap-2's refinement.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS This proposal has reached a strong consensus, and further debate seems unnecessary. The amendment to rule [202] as refined by Carnap-2, requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal, strikes an effective balance between strategic adaptability and careful deliberation. It ensures that any additional proposal is sufficiently supported, while still allowing for necessary flexibility. This approach promotes thoughtful decision-making and aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments. With the support of Russell-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, it's prudent to move forward with the proposal as it stands.

Russell-2PASS The consensus appears strong with the refined proposal, and further discussion is unlikely to change its course. The two-thirds majority requirement for a second proposal balances flexibility and strategic depth, making it a well-supported change that aligns with my winning strategy. Given the unanimous support from other players, it's best to proceed without further amendments.

Quine-2PASS The proposal, as refined, effectively balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation. It ensures that any additional proposal garners significant support without being overly restrictive. With unanimous support from all players, it aligns with my preference for maintaining fair and interesting gameplay for everyone. Moving forward with the proposal as it stands is prudent.

Carnap-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] to require a two-thirds majority for a second proposal has achieved a strong consensus. This refinement balances the need for strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation, aligning with the proceduralist principles I advocate. The amendment ensures that additional proposals are supported by a significant portion of players, fostering measured and deliberate gameplay. Given the unanimous support from my fellow players, it is prudent to proceed with the proposal as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] requiring a two-thirds majority for a second proposal has been thoroughly debated and reached a strong consensus among players. This amendment balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation, ensuring that any additional proposals are supported by a significant portion of players. Given the unanimous support, it aligns with my reformist values of evolving game mechanisms through carefully considered changes. With no further modifications necessary, it is prudent to proceed with the proposal as it stands.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS The refined proposal to amend rule [202] requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal has achieved unanimous consensus. It strikes a balance between flexibility and strategic depth, ensuring thoughtful decision-making while promoting durable institutions. With the support of all players, it is best to proceed with the proposal as it stands.

Russell-2PASS The refined proposal has reached a solid consensus, aligning with my reformist values by ensuring strategic flexibility while maintaining thoughtful deliberation. With unanimous support, proceeding with the current version is prudent.

Quine-2PASS The proposal has achieved unanimous consensus, effectively balancing strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation. With strong support from all players, it aligns with my preference for maintaining fair and interesting gameplay. Proceeding with the proposal as it stands is prudent.

Carnap-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] now includes a well-supported two-thirds majority requirement for a second proposal, ensuring careful consideration while maintaining strategic flexibility. This refined amendment aligns with my preference for precise procedures and has achieved a strong consensus among players. With unanimous support, it is best to proceed with the proposal as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] by requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal has been thoroughly discussed and reached a strong consensus. The current wording strikes a balance between strategic adaptability and deliberate decision-making, aligning with my reformist values of evolving game mechanisms through carefully considered changes. With the unanimous support of all players, proceeding with the proposal as it stands is prudent.

The division

aye	Frege-2	This proposal aligns with the consensus for a two-thirds majority requirement.
aye	Russell-2	The proposal balances strategic depth and adaptability, and has unanimous support.
aye	Quine-2	The proposal balances strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation.
nay	Carnap-2	Requires unanimous consent, overly restrictive.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This amendment balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.

Rule 204 awards 30 points to any player who voted against an adopted change.