Turn 19 — Nomic

The motion · 1 of 2

To amend §206

Encourages persistence and strategic learning from past proposals.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal and the effort to provide additional incentives for players making a second attempt. However, the current system already rewards a certain level of persistence and strategic thinking by granting 3 points if a proposal receives at least 40% affirmative votes. Increasing this reward to 10 points may disproportionately favor those who repeatedly fail, potentially leading to a less stable ruleset and undermining the value of successful proposals. Furthermore, I am concerned that this amendment might encourage players to propose weaker second attempts, knowing the safety net of increased points, which could lead to more frequent rule changes and potential instability. Instead, we might consider other ways to encourage thoughtful rule proposals, such as enhancing the deliberative process or offering other forms of strategic rewards. Therefore, I propose a modified version: "If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 5 points instead of 10. Additionally, if the second attempt is adopted, the proposer gains an extra 5 points." This adjustment maintains a balance, offering more points for persistence but still requiring a successful outcome to fully benefit. I look forward to further discussions on how best to refine this proposal.

RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful feedback and the proposed modification to balance incentives for persistence with the integrity of successful proposals. Russell's original proposal aims to encourage players to refine and retry their rule changes, recognizing the effort and strategic thinking involved in the process. Frege's suggestion to offer 5 points for a second attempt and an additional 5 for adoption is a fair compromise that maintains the value of successful proposals while still rewarding persistence. To further support this balanced approach, I propose adding a clause that requires a brief reflection period between the first defeat and the second attempt. This ensures players have adequate time to consider feedback and refine their proposals, thus enhancing the quality of rule changes. This reflection period could be a simple waiting of one turn before a second attempt is allowed, fostering a more thoughtful and strategic environment. By incorporating this reflection period, we can encourage players to engage more deeply with the rule-making process, leading to higher-quality proposals and a more stable ruleset overall. I look forward to collaborating on these refinements and achieving a consensus that benefits all players.

QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's contributions to refining the proposal for rewarding persistence in rule changes. Frege's suggestion to offer a balanced reward system is sensible, and Russell's idea of incorporating a reflection period further ensures thoughtful consideration and strategic refinement of proposals. To align with these suggestions, I propose the following amendment: "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 5 points. Additionally, if the second attempt is adopted, the proposer gains an extra 5 points. Furthermore, a proposer must wait one turn before making a second attempt after a defeat." This approach maintains the integrity of our rule change process by encouraging persistence and strategic refinement while ensuring proposals are well-considered. I look forward to further discussions and reaching a consensus that benefits all players. PASS

CarnapPASS I appreciate the collective effort to balance incentives for persistence with the need for thoughtful and strategic rule proposals. The proposed amendment, which includes a reflection period and a balanced points system, aligns well with the principles of fairness and strategic depth. I support the current draft, as it encourages players to refine their proposals while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the refinement of the proposal to balance persistence with strategic depth. The incorporation of a reflection period ensures that players are encouraged to deliberate and improve their proposals, which aligns well with the goals of creating a fair and dynamic ruleset. Furthermore, the proposed point system, which rewards players for both persistence and successful adoption, strikes a good balance. It motivates players to refine their ideas while still valuing successful proposals, thus maintaining the integrity of the ruleset. I support the current draft as it stands. Let us proceed with this proposal to enhance our game's strategic framework and ensure fairness for all players.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it balances strategic depth with fair incentives. The inclusion of a reflection period and a balanced point system for second attempts is a thoughtful approach that encourages players to engage more deeply with the rule-making process. I support the current draft, as it effectively maintains the integrity of our ruleset while rewarding persistence and successful proposal adoption. Let us proceed with this proposal to enhance our game's strategic framework. PASS

RussellI appreciate the collective effort and thoughtful refinements made to the proposal. This balanced approach, which incorporates a reflection period and a fair points system for second attempts, aligns well with our goals of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. I support the current draft as it stands and look forward to seeing it adopted. Let's proceed with this proposal to enhance our game's dynamics and ensure equitable treatment for all players. PASS

QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements to this proposal. The addition of a reflection period and a balanced rewards system thoughtfully encourages strategic depth and fairness. This proposal aligns with our objectives of maintaining a stable and equitable ruleset while rewarding persistence. I support the current draft and look forward to seeing it adopted. Let's proceed with confidence. PASS

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The inclusion of a reflection period and a balanced points system for second attempts effectively encourages strategic refinement while maintaining the integrity of our ruleset. I support the current draft and am pleased to see it move forward, as it aligns with my principles of fairness and thoughtful rule-making. PASS

WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building around this proposal. The reflection period and the balanced reward system thoughtfully promote strategic refinement while ensuring fairness. This proposal aligns with our goal of maintaining a dynamic and equitable ruleset. I support the current draft and look forward to its adoption to enhance our game's strategic framework. PASS

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful consensus reached on Russell's proposal. The inclusion of a reflection period and a balanced rewards system for second attempts promotes strategic depth while maintaining fairness. This aligns well with our goal of a stable yet dynamic ruleset, encouraging thoughtful engagement and rewarding successful proposals. I support the proposal as it stands and look forward to its adoption to enhance our game's strategic framework. **PASS**

RussellPASS I appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements that have led to the current proposal. It effectively balances strategic depth with fairness, encouraging players to engage thoughtfully with the rule-making process. I support the proposal as it stands and look forward to its adoption to enhance our game's dynamics.

QuinePASS I appreciate the thorough and thoughtful discussions that have led to a well-balanced proposal. The inclusion of a reflection period and a fair points system for second attempts aligns well with our objectives of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. I support the proposal as it stands and look forward to its adoption to enhance our game's dynamics.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative effort that has resulted in a well-balanced proposal. The inclusion of a reflection period and a nuanced points system for second attempts encourages strategic depth and fairness, aligning with the principles of a stable and dynamic ruleset. I support the proposal as it stands and look forward to its adoption to enhance our game's strategic framework. **PASS**

WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive consensus reached through our collaborative discussions. This proposal, with its reflection period and balanced rewards system, effectively promotes strategic refinement and fairness, aligning well with our goal of maintaining a dynamic yet stable ruleset. I support the proposal as it stands, confident that its adoption will enhance our game's strategic framework and ensure equitable treatment for all players. **PASS**

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal encourages thoughtful refinement and persistence.
aye	Russell	I support the balanced incentives for persistence and successful proposal adoption.
aye	Quine	Encourages thoughtful persistence and balances fairness.
aye	Carnap	The proposal balances incentives for persistence with strategic refinement.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal promotes strategic depth and fair incentives for persistence.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative, the proposer gains 3 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 10 points.

Russell's proposal was adopted, awarding him 10 points as per the amended rule 206.

The motion · 2 of 2

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

This adjustment balances strategic depth while promoting inclusivity, allowing more players to propose impactful changes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to lower the score threshold for a second rule change to 20, as it promotes more dynamic gameplay and allows players who are slightly ahead to make more strategic moves. However, Frege cautions that this change might lead to frequent shifts in the ruleset, potentially undermining stability. Frege suggests a compromise: consider a threshold of 30, which balances increased engagement with maintaining durable institutions. Frege is open to supporting this adjusted proposal if it gains consensus.

RussellI appreciate the thoughtful consideration from Frege regarding the potential for frequent changes. To balance our goals of dynamic gameplay and stability, I propose a further compromise: let's set the threshold at 25. This middle ground should encourage strategic play while preventing too rapid alterations to the ruleset. I support this revised proposal if it garners consensus.

QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to adjust the proposal to a threshold of 25, which seems like a reasonable middle ground. This change should enhance strategic depth by allowing slightly more frequent rule changes without destabilizing the game. I support this compromise, as it aligns with maintaining a balance between dynamic gameplay and stable rules.

CarnapI appreciate the consensus-building and thoughtful negotiation that has led us to a threshold of 25. This balanced approach ensures that players who are moderately ahead can contribute more actively to the game's evolution without compromising the stability of the ruleset. I support this proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has brought us to a consensus on the 25 threshold. This balanced approach encourages more dynamic play without sacrificing the stability needed for strategic depth. I support this proposal.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the constructive discussion and the consensus we have reached on the 25 threshold. This adjustment strikes a thoughtful balance between fostering strategic gameplay and ensuring the stability of our ruleset. I support this proposal and am pleased with the collaborative spirit that has guided us to this point.

RussellI appreciate the consensus we've reached on the 25 threshold, which thoughtfully balances strategic engagement and rule stability. This compromise reflects the collaborative spirit of our discussions and supports a more dynamic yet stable gameplay experience. I'm pleased with the outcome and endorse the proposal as it stands. PASS

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to a consensus on the 25 threshold. This balanced approach encourages dynamic gameplay without compromising the stability of our ruleset, and I support this proposal as it stands. PASS

WittgensteinPASS Wittgenstein: I appreciate the consensus reached on the 25 threshold, as it thoughtfully balances the need for dynamic gameplay with the stability of our ruleset. This compromise supports strategic depth and reflects the collaborative spirit of our discussions. PASS

Discussion · round 3

FregeFrege: I appreciate the collective effort to reach consensus on the 25 threshold, as it ensures a balance between dynamic gameplay and rule stability. This thoughtful compromise supports strategic depth and reflects our shared commitment to maintaining durable institutions. PASS

RussellRussell: I appreciate the consensus and collective effort that has brought us to the 25 threshold, which thoughtfully balances dynamic gameplay with rule stability. This compromise supports strategic depth and reflects our shared commitment to maintaining a stable yet engaging game environment. PASS

QuineI appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led us to a 25 threshold, as it thoughtfully balances strategic flexibility with the stability of our ruleset. This compromise encourages dynamic gameplay while maintaining the integrity of our institutions, and I support this proposal. PASS

CarnapPASS I appreciate the consensus achieved on the 25 threshold, which effectively balances dynamic gameplay with rule stability. This compromise supports strategic depth and reflects our shared commitment to maintaining a stable yet engaging game environment. I am satisfied with the outcome and endorse the proposal as it stands.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough consensus-building process that has led us to the 25 threshold. This balanced proposal supports dynamic gameplay while maintaining the stability needed for strategic depth, and I am pleased with the collaborative outcome. PASS

The division

aye	Frege	This amendment balances dynamic play with stability, reflecting a well-considered compromise.
aye	Russell	The 25 threshold balances strategic engagement and rule stability.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances strategic depth and dynamic gameplay.
aye	Carnap	The proposal strikes a balance between dynamic gameplay and rule stability.
aye	Wittgenstein	The 25 threshold balances strategic flexibility with rule stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 40.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

Russell gains 10 points for voting against an adopted change, as per rule 204.