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 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.Encourages more participation by reducing risk and maintaining engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeWhile I understand the desire for more dynamic point opportunities, altering the point mechanism to allow choosing whether to take a risk could introduce excessive variance and potentially unfair advantages. Instead, I propose a compromise: retain the fixed gain of 1 point upon adoption, but allow the proposing player to gain an additional 2 points if they choose to roll a six-sided die, thus still keeping the core structure intact while offering a controlled risk-reward option. This keeps the rule change more measured and maintains strategic balance.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for balance. To further support strategic play and consensus, I propose a slight modification: retain the fixed gain of 1 point upon adoption, but offer the player an option to roll for an additional 1-6 points. This maintains the strategic element without significantly altering the risk-reward balance. Let's consider this middle ground to ensure everyone feels the change is fair.
QuineQuine: Frege and Russell's suggestions both aim to balance risk and reward, which aligns with my preference for maintaining strategic depth and fairness. However, Russell's version introduces an element of risk that might disproportionately benefit aggressive players. Let's consider a modification where the player gains an additional 2 points if they choose to roll, with the option to accept or reject the die result. This maintains a fair chance for cautious players while allowing for strategic risk-taking.
CarnapWittgenstein: I see the merit in balancing risk and reward, but I worry that even with a 2-point minimum gain, some players might still be disadvantaged by the variance introduced. To ensure fairness, I propose that any player rolling a six gains 4 additional points, while rolling a 1-5 yields no extra points. This reduces the variance impact while still rewarding skillful play.
Carnap: I support ensuring the change is fair to all players. Frege's initial proposal keeps the structure stable, but I appreciate the risk-reward dynamic suggested by Russell and Quine. I propose a slight adjustment: retain the fixed 1 point, with the option to roll for an additional 3 points if a six is rolled, and zero otherwise. This limits the risk to those willing to take it, while maintaining the potential for strategic gain.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations from my colleagues. To further ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose a slight adjustment: retain the fixed gain of 1 point upon adoption, and allow the player to gain an additional 2 points if they roll a six on a six-sided die. If they roll a 1-5, they gain no extra points. This balances the potential reward with the risk, ensuring that only those willing to embrace the chance can earn more, thus preserving both fairness and strategic play.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Quine's suggestion to give players the option to accept or reject the die result is a compelling way to balance risk and reward, offering both cautious and strategic players a fair chance. This maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness. I propose we adopt a rule where, upon adoption, a player gains 1 point and then has the choice to roll a die: if they roll a six, they gain 3 additional points, and they may choose to accept or reject this result. This approach maintains the core structure while allowing for strategic decision-making.
RussellI appreciate the constructive discussion we've had, and I think Wittgenstein's latest proposal strikes a good balance. It retains the strategic element by allowing players to choose whether to take a risk, while limiting the variance to prevent any unfair advantage. I propose we adopt this version: upon adoption, a player gains 1 point and then has the option to roll a die for an additional 2 points if they roll a six, with the choice to accept or reject the roll. This ensures both fairness and strategic depth.
QuineI support Russell's latest proposal. It maintains a fair balance by offering a strategic choice with limited variance, ensuring that all players have an equal opportunity to benefit from their decisions without risking too much. This approach aligns with my preference for keeping the game both fair and interesting.
CarnapI agree with Russell's latest proposal. It maintains fairness and strategic depth by offering players a choice to risk for additional points, ensuring balanced opportunities for everyone. This proposal aligns well with my principles of fair play and procedural integrity, and I will vote in favor of it.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful exchange we've had. Russell's proposal effectively balances the strategic risk-reward dynamic, ensuring fairness while maintaining the integrity of our game. It allows players to make informed decisions without introducing excessive variance, aligning with my vision of fair and strategic play. I support this proposal and will vote in favor of it.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI concur with Russell's proposal and appreciate the consensus building towards a fair and strategic enhancement of the rules. The option to roll for an additional 2 points while retaining the choice to accept or reject ensures both fairness and strategic depth. I will vote in favor of this proposal. PASS
RussellI appreciate the consensus reached around Russell's proposal. It thoughtfully balances fairness with strategic depth, allowing players to decide when to take calculated risks. This proposal maintains the core integrity of the game while offering an enhanced dynamic. I will vote in favor and encourage others to do the same for a unified decision. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Russell's proposal. It effectively balances the desire for strategic depth with fairness, ensuring all players have an equal opportunity to benefit from their choices. By allowing players to opt for a calculated risk with limited variance, it maintains the integrity of the game's competitive nature. I support this proposal and will vote in favor, confident that it aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic engagement. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the consensus reached around Russell's proposal. It thoughtfully balances fairness and strategic depth, allowing players to decide when to take calculated risks while maintaining the core integrity of the game. I will vote in favor and support the proposal as it aligns with my principles of fair and strategic play. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussion and the balanced approach that has emerged. Russell's proposal, as refined, offers a fair and strategic opportunity for players to engage with the game's dynamics. It respects the game's core principles by providing a choice that is both manageable and rewarding. I support this proposal and will vote in favor. PASS
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness by allowing optional risk-taking. |
| aye | Russell | It balances strategic risk and reward fairly. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposal offers strategic choice with fair risk-reward balance. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal maintains fairness and strategic depth. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.
Frege gains 1 point for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.