The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, followed by a discussion period where players can ask for clarifications or suggest amendments, which are then voted on. If the player chooses, they may propose a second, independent rule change, which will undergo the same process as the first, and both changes must be adopted or defeated together.This amendment allows strategic diversity while maintaining fairness by requiring both changes to be decided together.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal for adding a second rule change option, as it could introduce strategic complexity. However, allowing both changes to be adopted or defeated together might disproportionately favor players with the means to craft multiple appealing proposals, potentially upsetting the balance. To mitigate this, I suggest that each proposed change should be voted on independently within the same turn. This ensures that each change is evaluated on its own merits, maintaining fairness and preventing one poorly conceived change from unduly affecting another well-considered one.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about maintaining fairness in the voting process. To address this, I propose a compromise: allow both rule changes to be voted on independently within the same turn, but require a minimum threshold of support for each—say, 50% in favor for the first change to proceed to the second. This ensures that only proposals with some level of initial consensus can advance, preventing a single poorly received change from advancing the second. Additionally, this maintains strategic depth by giving players the option to propose two changes, but only if each is deemed worthy by a simple majority. This approach balances fairness with strategic complexity, aligning with our shared goals.
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to adjust the proposal for fairness and strategic balance. Allowing independent voting with a minimum threshold ensures that only proposals with genuine support can progress, which aligns well with maintaining game integrity. However, to further ensure that players don't exploit this flexibility, I suggest setting the threshold for the first change at a slightly higher mark, perhaps 55%, to discourage superficial proposals. This would encourage thoughtful rule changes and preserve the competitive spirit of Nomic.
CarnapI appreciate both Frege and Quine's thoughtful refinements to Russell's proposal. Their suggestions for independent voting and a higher threshold for the first change address fairness and strategic depth concerns effectively. To ensure clarity and prevent strategic gaming of this flexibility, I suggest we include a provision that the first rule change must be evaluated solely on its own merits before any consideration of the second, reinforcing the integrity of each proposal. This adjustment should help maintain balance while allowing for the potential complexity of dual proposals.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Carnap, which have helped refine Russell's proposal towards fairness and strategic depth. To further ensure balance, I suggest implementing a review mechanism whereby players can challenge a rule change if they believe it violates the spirit of the game, with disputes resolved by a majority vote. This would add an additional layer of accountability, ensuring that rule changes remain aligned with the game's objectives while preserving the opportunity for strategic innovation.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the insightful suggestions from Quine and Carnap on setting a higher threshold and ensuring each rule change is evaluated independently. To further bolster fairness and discourage superficial proposals, I propose incorporating a brief deliberation period after the first vote, allowing players to discuss potential impacts before proceeding to the second change. This would ensure thoughtful consideration while preserving strategic depth.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful refinements from everyone. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a provision that each player can only propose a second rule change once per game to prevent any potential abuse of this new flexibility. This ensures that strategic complexity is maintained without overwhelming the game's balance, aligning with our shared goal of fair play.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal, particularly the suggestions for independent voting and a higher threshold for the first change. To ensure that the strategic complexity introduced by allowing a second rule change remains balanced, I propose that the second rule change be subject to a more stringent approval process, such as a two-thirds majority, similar to the current rule change adoption requirement. This would ensure that only well-considered and broadly supported proposals can advance, maintaining the integrity and competitive balance of the game.
CarnapI appreciate the collective efforts to refine this proposal, especially the ideas for independent voting and higher thresholds. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I suggest that if the second rule change is proposed, it should not only require a two-thirds majority but also must not conflict with any existing rules that were not addressed by the first change. This would encourage players to think comprehensively about their proposals and maintain the integrity of the game's structure.
WittgensteinI appreciate Quine's proposal for a two-thirds majority requirement for the second rule change, as it aligns well with maintaining strategic depth and fairness. To further ensure that this new mechanism doesn't disrupt the game's balance, I suggest allowing players to propose a second rule change only if the first is adopted, thereby ensuring that only well-supported changes can lead to additional proposals. This approach maintains strategic complexity without risking the introduction of poorly supported changes.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: I appreciate Wittgenstein's latest refinement regarding the second rule change being contingent upon the adoption of the first. This effectively maintains strategic balance and discourages frivolous proposals. To further ensure thoughtful consideration, I propose that players must wait at least two turns before they can propose a second rule change, even if their first proposal is adopted. This waiting period will encourage players to deliberate carefully and strategically plan their rule changes, preserving the integrity and competitive nature of Nomic.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Wittgenstein and Frege regarding the waiting period before proposing a second rule change. To further enhance strategic depth, I propose that if a player's first rule change is defeated, they must wait an additional turn before proposing any rule change again. This adjustment ensures players are motivated to craft well-supported and thoughtful proposals, maintaining the competitive balance of the game.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and refinements from everyone. To further ensure strategic balance and prevent potential exploitation, I suggest that any player proposing a second rule change must also commit to a period of inaction (e.g., not proposing any rule changes) for a number of turns equal to the number of successful second rule changes they have proposed in the past. This creates a natural limit on the use of this flexibility, encouraging careful consideration and strategic timing, while preserving the competitive integrity of the game.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements, particularly the proposal for a waiting period and strategic limits on proposing multiple changes. To further ensure fairness, I suggest that the second rule change must directly relate to the first in terms of topic or effect, ensuring that both proposals are inherently cohesive and strategic, rather than opportunistic. This would reinforce the principle that each proposal is made with a clear, unified strategic intent, maintaining the integrity and balance of our game.
WittgensteinI appreciate Quine's idea for a strategic limit on multiple proposals. To ensure that the dual proposal system remains fair and doesn't disproportionately benefit those with more time or resources, I propose that any second rule change must address an issue arising from the first rule change's adoption, ensuring direct relevance and strategic cohesion. This requirement will maintain the integrity of our game's rule changes and prevent players from exploiting this mechanism for unrelated advantages.
The division
| nay | Frege | It could allow strategic exploitation without sufficient safeguards. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal adds strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
| nay | Quine | The proposal lacks adequate safeguards to prevent strategic imbalance. |
| nay | Carnap | The proposal lacks sufficient constraints to ensure fair and strategic play. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This proposal introduces strategic depth while maintaining fairness. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for a defeated proposal.