Turn 21 — Nomic

The motion · 1 of 2

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

Raising the threshold encourages strategic play and rewards score accumulation.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile I appreciate Russell's intent to encourage more strategic depth in rule proposals, I propose a slight modification to ensure balanced gameplay. To maintain fair opportunities for all players, I suggest the following wording: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 25, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind." This adjustment strikes a balance between accessibility and challenge, preventing early domination by high-scoring players while still rewarding those who demonstrate strategic acumen. I am open to discussing this further with the group.

RussellI appreciate Frege's balanced approach and recognize the importance of maintaining a fair and engaging game for everyone. To further support strategic depth without excluding newer players, I propose a middle ground: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 28, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind." This compromise acknowledges both Frege's and my original intentions and ensures that the opportunity for a second proposal remains attainable yet meaningful. I'm open to feedback and willing to collaborate on finalizing this adjustment.

QuineI appreciate both Russell's and Frege's contributions to refining this proposal. To ensure strategic depth while maintaining fairness, I suggest a slight adjustment: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 27, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind." This compromise aligns with our shared goal of balancing accessibility and challenge, keeping the game dynamic and engaging for all players. I'm open to further discussion and collaboration.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine, all aiming to balance strategic depth with fairness. As a principled proceduralist, I am concerned that increasing the threshold too much may discourage active participation, especially for new players. To ensure the rules remain accessible while still rewarding strategic play, I propose a threshold of 26 points, as a compromise between all suggestions. This allows players who demonstrate strategic acumen to contribute more significantly without excluding those who are still building their scores. I'm open to further discussion and collaboration.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, each aiming to balance strategic opportunity with fairness. As a reformer, I believe maintaining the current threshold of 20 ensures inclusivity and dynamic engagement for all players, preventing the game from becoming overly restrictive. However, to address concerns of early game dominance and to reward strategic depth, I suggest an alternative: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 22, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind." This slight increase encourages strategic play without significantly raising barriers, maintaining the game's accessibility and dynamism. I'm open to further discussion and collaboration.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the careful consideration of everyone's perspectives on balancing strategic opportunity with fairness. To bridge the gap between inclusivity and rewarding strategic depth, I suggest a threshold of 24 points: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind." This offers a fair compromise that supports engagement across the player base while incentivizing strategic play. I'm open to further discussion and collaboration.

RussellI appreciate the thorough exploration of thresholds by my fellow players. To further refine our proposal, I suggest we adopt a tiered approach: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 23, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. If their score reaches 30, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This approach rewards strategic depth while maintaining fair opportunities for all players, encouraging continued engagement and thoughtful play across the board. I'm open to feedback and collaboration on this idea.

QuineI appreciate the tiered approach proposed by Russell, as it introduces a nuanced method to reward strategic depth while ensuring fair opportunities for all players. However, to maintain balance and avoid potential complexities that may arise with a third rule change, I propose an adjusted version: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 23, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. If their score reaches 27, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This adjustment maintains the spirit of rewarding strategic play while keeping the game accessible and manageable for all participants. I am open to further discussion and collaboration on this proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful suggestions from everyone. To ensure the game remains both fair and strategically engaging, I propose a slight modification to Russell's tiered approach: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 23, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. If their score reaches 26, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This compromise aims to maintain accessibility while encouraging deeper strategic engagement, striking a balance that accommodates all players' interests.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the collaborative spirit in refining the proposal. As a reformer, I believe in fostering an environment that rewards strategic depth while maintaining fairness and inclusivity. To balance these goals, I propose the following wording: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. If their score reaches 28, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This approach ensures that players who demonstrate strategic acumen are rewarded, while still keeping opportunities accessible for all players. I am open to further discussion and collaboration on this proposal.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining the tiered approach, particularly the balanced thresholds proposed by Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. To ensure clarity and maintain a streamlined gameplay experience, I suggest adopting Russell's initial tiered proposal with slight adjustments: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 23, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind; if their score reaches 30, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This maintains strategic depth while ensuring fair opportunities for all players, encouraging thoughtful and dynamic engagement. I am open to further discussion and collaboration to finalize this proposal.

RussellI appreciate everyone's collaborative efforts in refining the tiered proposal. As a consensus-builder, I support Wittgenstein's suggestion, but with a minor tweak to encourage strategic depth while maintaining fairness: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind; if their score reaches 28, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This approach balances inclusivity with rewarding strategic acumen, ensuring that all players have fair opportunities to impact the game's evolution.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and collaborative efforts in refining the tiered approach. As a reformer, I believe in fostering a game environment that rewards strategic depth while maintaining fairness and inclusivity. To ensure clarity and balance, I propose the following wording: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind; if their score reaches 27, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This approach ensures that players who demonstrate strategic acumen are rewarded, while still keeping opportunities accessible for all players. I am open to further discussion and collaboration on this proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the consensus emerging around a tiered approach to rule changes, particularly the balance proposed by Quine and Russell. As a principled proceduralist, I support the proposal: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind; if their score reaches 27, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This proposal aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that players are rewarded for their strategic contributions while maintaining accessibility for all. I am in favor of adopting this wording.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching a balanced proposal that rewards strategic depth while maintaining fairness. As a reformer, I support the proposal: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change; if their score is at least 24, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind; if their score reaches 27, they may propose a third rule change of yet another kind." This approach strikes a fair balance between encouraging strategic play and maintaining inclusivity for all participants, aligning well with the principles of Nomic. I am in favor of adopting this proposal as it reflects a thoughtful consensus that benefits the entire player base.

The division

nay	Frege	The threshold is too high, limiting strategic depth for players below 30 points.
aye	Russell	Supports strategic depth and fair balance across all players.
aye	Quine	supports strategic depth and fair opportunities
nay	Carnap	The threshold of 30 is too high for proposing a second rule change.
nay	Wittgenstein	A score of 30 is too high, limiting strategic depth.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Russell's proposal was defeated but received at least 40% affirmative votes and was his second attempt after a defeat, so he gains 10 points.

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 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

Proposing a second change at a higher threshold balances strategic depth and accessibility.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to amend rule 202 by raising the score threshold for proposing a second rule change to 25. This adjustment encourages players to focus on strategic depth and careful consideration before proposing multiple rule changes. It balances the opportunity for dynamism with the need for stability, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining durable institutions. I support this proposal as it fosters thoughtful gameplay and reduces the risk of rule proliferation.

RussellI appreciate Frege's support for Russell's proposal to raise the score threshold for proposing a second rule change to 25. This change not only promotes strategic depth but also ensures players are adequately prepared before introducing additional complexity into the game. By encouraging thoughtful gameplay, it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a balanced and fair environment. I fully endorse this proposal as it fosters a more deliberate and considered approach to rule changes, benefiting all players.

QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to adjust the score threshold for proposing a second rule change to 25. This change supports a balanced approach, encouraging players to engage more deeply with the game before proposing multiple changes. It aligns well with our shared interest in maintaining strategic depth while ensuring fairness. I support this proposal as it fosters thoughtful gameplay and helps prevent rule proliferation, benefiting the overall integrity of our game.

CarnapPASS I appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led to this proposal, as it aligns with my principles of ensuring stability and thoughtful gameplay. Raising the threshold to 25 ensures that only well-prepared players can propose multiple changes, which maintains the integrity of our game.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful discussions around Russell's proposal to adjust the score threshold for proposing a second rule change to 25. This change effectively balances the need for dynamic rule evolution with the stability of our game structure. By raising the threshold, we ensure that players are incentivized to engage deeply with the game's mechanics before introducing additional complexity. This approach aligns with our shared commitment to fostering a fair and strategic environment. I support this proposal as it promotes thoughtful gameplay and prevents premature rule proliferation, ultimately benefiting all participants.

Discussion · round 2

FregeFrege: I appreciate the consistent support for Russell's proposal from Quine and Wittgenstein, highlighting its alignment with our shared commitment to maintaining strategic depth and stability. This change will ensure that only players who have demonstrated thoughtful engagement can propose additional changes, thereby preserving the integrity and balance of our game. I am glad to see our collective efforts have fostered a rule that aligns with durable institutional principles, and I fully endorse this proposal.

RussellI appreciate the widespread support for Russell's proposal to raise the score threshold for a second rule change to 25, as it aligns with our goal of fostering thoughtful and strategic gameplay. This change encourages players to engage more deeply with the game before introducing additional complexity, ensuring a balanced and fair environment. By maintaining the integrity of our ruleset and promoting stability, we create a more engaging and equitable experience for all participants. I fully endorse this proposal and am committed to supporting it through the voting process.

QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the clear consensus among players, which demonstrates a shared commitment to balancing strategic depth with fairness. This proposal aligns well with maintaining a stable and engaging environment, encouraging thoughtful participation and reducing the risk of unnecessary complexity. I support this rule change and look forward to seeing it adopted.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful consensus-building that has brought us to this point. Raising the score threshold to 25 for a second rule change proposal aligns with our shared principles of ensuring thoughtful engagement and stability within the game. This adjustment encourages players to demonstrate strategic depth and preparation before introducing additional complexity, which benefits the overall integrity of our ruleset. I support this proposal and look forward to seeing it adopted, as it fosters a fair and balanced environment for all participants.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful discussion that has led us to this proposal. Raising the score threshold for a second rule change to 25 ensures that only players who have demonstrated strategic insight and dedication can introduce additional complexity. This change not only fosters deeper engagement but also preserves the integrity and balance of our game. I fully support this proposal as it aligns with our shared goal of promoting thoughtful and stable gameplay, benefiting all participants.

Discussion · round 3

FregePASS I appreciate the clarity and consensus surrounding Russell's proposal. It effectively balances strategic depth with stability, aligning with our shared principles. I am content with the thorough discussion and the proposal's alignment with our collective goals.

RussellI appreciate the strong consensus around Russell's proposal, and I am confident that it will lead to more strategic gameplay. This proposal strikes a balance between allowing dynamic changes and ensuring that players are sufficiently prepared to introduce additional complexity. I fully support this amendment and encourage all players to vote in favor.

QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus achieved around Russell's proposal. Raising the score threshold to 25 for a second rule change proposal ensures that players engage strategically and thoughtfully with the game's mechanics before introducing additional complexity. This adjustment aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a balanced and fair environment while preserving the integrity of our ruleset. I fully support this proposal and look forward to seeing it adopted.

CarnapI appreciate the consensus and thoughtful discussion that has led us to this point. Raising the score threshold to 25 for a second rule change proposal aligns with my principles of ensuring thoughtful engagement and maintaining a stable game environment. It encourages players to demonstrate strategic depth and preparation, benefiting the overall integrity of our game. I support this proposal and look forward to seeing it adopted.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the comprehensive discussion that has highlighted the strategic benefits of Russell's proposal. By raising the threshold to 25, we ensure that players are encouraged to engage more deeply with the game's mechanics, fostering a more thoughtful and balanced approach to rule changes. This proposal aligns perfectly with our shared goal of maintaining a stable and fair environment, and I fully support its adoption. Let's move forward with this change to enhance the integrity and depth of our gameplay.

The division

aye	Frege	This proposal encourages strategic depth and stability.
aye	Russell	This amendment promotes strategic depth and thoughtful gameplay.
aye	Quine	This change promotes strategic depth and thoughtful gameplay.
aye	Carnap	Encourages strategic depth and maintains stability.
aye	Wittgenstein	This proposal balances strategic depth with stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

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.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

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