Turn 29 — 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 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

This lowers the threshold to allow more strategic depth and increase player engagement.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led us to consider a 18-point threshold for proposing a second rule change. While this does lower the barrier to strategic diversity, I propose an amendment to further balance accessibility with a check against potential rule chaos: if a player proposes a second change and it fails, their score should decrease by 3 points. This addition aims to ensure that the privilege of proposing a second change is exercised judiciously, maintaining the competitive integrity of the game.

RussellPASS I appreciate Frege's proposal to balance the lowered threshold with a penalty for a failed second change. This nuanced addition could help maintain fairness while allowing for more strategic options. However, I propose a slight modification to the penalty: instead of a flat decrease of 3 points, perhaps the penalty should be proportional to the gap between the player's current score and the threshold, encouraging players to carefully evaluate the strength of their proposals. This could further refine the balance between accessibility and strategic depth.

QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to balance the game by adjusting the threshold and proposing a penalty for failed second changes. The idea of a proportional penalty is intriguing as it could discourage frivolous proposals while allowing strategic depth. To further refine this, I suggest setting the penalty as a percentage of the player's current score, such as 5%, which scales with the player's progress. This approach maintains fairness across different score levels and encourages thoughtful engagement. If we can agree on this, I support the proposal with the proportional penalty adjustment.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal with a proportional penalty based on current scores. This approach ensures fairness and discourages frivolous proposals across all score levels. However, to maintain procedural clarity and avoid excessive complexity, I propose a fixed percentage of 5% as the penalty. This keeps the rule straightforward while still scaling with a player's progress, aligning well with my principled proceduralist stance. If this amendment is accepted, I support the proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the consensus-building around the proposed 18-point threshold and the proportional penalty system. The 5% penalty aligns well with the need for fairness and strategic depth, as it scales appropriately with a player's score. To further ensure clarity and prevent any unintended consequences, I propose specifying that the penalty applies only if the player's score is above the threshold at the time of the vote. This ensures that players just reaching the threshold are not unduly penalized, maintaining a fair opportunity for all players to engage strategically. If this clarification is agreed upon, I support the proposal.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful development of this proposal, particularly the addition of a proportional penalty that scales with a player's progress, as it fosters strategic depth without compromising fairness. However, I propose further refining the penalty to apply only if the second proposal is not only defeated but also receives less than 30% affirmative votes. This ensures that only significantly unsupported proposals incur a penalty, maintaining a balance between encouraging strategic rule changes and preventing frivolous attempts. If this amendment is accepted, I support the proposal.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to further refine the penalty condition to only apply if the second proposal receives less than 30% affirmative votes. This nuanced approach encourages thoughtful proposals while minimizing unnecessary penalties, maintaining a fair and strategic environment. To enhance clarity, I propose that this penalty be explicitly stated as a deduction of 5% from the player's current score, applying only if the proposal is both defeated and falls below the 30% threshold. This specificity ensures that players understand the exact conditions under which penalties apply. If we can agree on these details, I support the proposal.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal with specific conditions for penalties, ensuring that only significantly unsupported proposals are penalized. The 5% penalty for proposals that receive less than 30% affirmative votes seems fair and encourages thoughtful engagement. However, to further balance accessibility and strategic opportunities, I suggest adding a provision that allows players to regain 2 points if their second proposal, although defeated, receives at least 30% affirmative votes. This incentivizes players to make well-considered proposals that have some level of support, fostering a more strategic and engaging environment. If this adjustment is accepted, I support the proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements to the proposal, especially the balanced approach to penalties and incentives for second proposals. The suggestion to allow a 2-point gain for proposals receiving at least 30% support is particularly compelling as it encourages meaningful contributions without discouraging risk-taking. However, to ensure procedural clarity and prevent excessive complexity, I propose that this 2-point gain only apply if the player’s score is below 50. This limits the incentive to those who are more likely to benefit from it strategically, maintaining a fair competitive environment. If this amendment is agreed upon, I support the proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive and balanced approach that this proposal has evolved into, particularly the nuanced penalty and incentive structure. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose specifying that the 2-point gain for second proposals receiving at least 30% affirmative votes applies only if the proposal is of a different kind than the first. This ensures that players are encouraged to diversify their strategic proposals, promoting a richer and more dynamic game environment. If this clarification is accepted, I support the proposal.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful refinements that have been made to this proposal, especially the balanced penalty and incentive system. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the 2-point gain for proposals receiving at least 30% affirmative votes be applicable only when the player's score is an even number. This small adjustment encourages players to consider their timing more carefully and adds an extra layer of strategic planning. If this condition is accepted, I support the proposal.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the nuanced approach to balancing penalties and incentives within the proposal. The condition that the 2-point gain applies only when the player's score is an even number adds an interesting strategic element. To further enhance fairness and strategic opportunities, I propose that this 2-point gain also requires the player's first proposal to have received at least 40% affirmative votes. This ensures that only players who have made a meaningful initial contribution can benefit from this incentive. If this condition is accepted, I support the proposal.

QuineI appreciate the thorough and strategic enhancements proposed by Frege and Russell, particularly the condition that the 2-point gain applies only when the player's score is an even number and the first proposal received at least 40% affirmative votes. This layered approach ensures that players are both incentivized and encouraged to make thoughtful contributions. To further balance this with accessibility, I propose that if a player's score is an odd number and their first proposal receives at least 50% affirmative votes, they can still gain 1 point for a second proposal that receives at least 30% affirmative votes. This adjustment maintains strategic depth while providing a fair opportunity for players at different score levels. If this additional flexibility is accepted, I support the proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the nuanced and collaborative efforts to refine this proposal, balancing strategic depth with fairness. The layered conditions for penalties and incentives are well-considered, promoting thoughtful engagement. However, to ensure clarity and prevent potential confusion, I propose specifying that all conditions for penalties and incentives must be clearly communicated to all players before the proposal is voted on. This transparency will ensure that all players understand the implications of their actions, maintaining a fair and strategic environment. If this amendment is accepted, I support the proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative and strategic evolution of this proposal, particularly the balance between penalties and incentives. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that all players receive a brief overview of the conditions and implications of this rule change at the start of each game session. This transparency will help players make informed decisions and maintain a fair competitive environment. If this proposal for clarity is accepted, I support it.

The division

aye	Frege	The proposal balances strategic flexibility with fair penalties for unsupported changes.
aye	Russell	This proposal balances strategic depth and fairness effectively.
aye	Quine	The proposal balances strategic opportunities with fairness.
aye	Carnap	The proposal aligns with strategic depth and fairness.
aye	Wittgenstein	The proposal balances strategic opportunities with fair penalties.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

The proposal was adopted without dissent, so no points are awarded or deducted.

The motion · 2 of 2

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.

This amendment aims to balance strategic depth with accessibility, encouraging more active participation while maintaining fairness.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion surrounding the proposal to adjust the threshold for proposing a second rule change. However, raising the threshold to 40 points may unduly restrict strategic opportunities for players with lower scores. A threshold of 30 points strikes a balance between preventing rule spamming and allowing strategic diversity, particularly as it aligns with the current consensus-building efforts. I propose to amend the proposal to set the threshold at 30 points instead. This adjustment maintains fairness while fostering a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.

RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to adjust the threshold to 30 points, as it reflects the consensus-building efforts and promotes strategic diversity. To ensure fairness and balance, I suggest incorporating a review mechanism where players can appeal the decision to propose a second rule change if their score is exactly 30. This compromise respects the strategic needs of all players while maintaining the integrity of the game. Let's work together to refine this proposal further.

QuineI appreciate the proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, as it aligns with the current strategic landscape. However, incorporating a review mechanism could introduce unnecessary complexity and potential delays. To ensure clarity and maintain momentum, I propose we keep the threshold at 30 without the review process, allowing players to propose a second rule change directly. This approach encourages strategic creativity and keeps the game dynamic. Let's proceed with this straightforward adjustment.

CarnapI appreciate Frege's proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, as it strikes a balance between enabling strategic flexibility and preventing rule spamming. However, I support Quine's suggestion to maintain a straightforward approach by omitting the review process, which could otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity. This clear and concise adjustment ensures fairness and maintains the game's dynamic nature, allowing players to propose a second rule change directly. Let's proceed with this streamlined proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to set the threshold at 30 points, as it balances strategic opportunities with fairness. To further refine this proposal, I propose adding a provision that allows players with a score of exactly 30 to propose a second rule change only if their initial proposal is rejected, encouraging thoughtful decision-making and maintaining a dynamic gameplay environment.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the collaborative discussion and the thoughtful input from all players. The proposal to set the threshold at 30 points with an added provision for rejected initial proposals, as suggested by Wittgenstein, provides a balanced approach. This encourages players to carefully consider their first proposal while preserving strategic flexibility for those who need it. I support this refined proposal and propose we proceed with it as is.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the nuanced proposal from Wittgenstein that balances strategic opportunities with fairness. To ensure clarity and consensus, I propose we adopt the refined proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, allowing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected. This approach fosters thoughtful gameplay and maintains a dynamic environment. Let's proceed with this balanced and well-considered proposal.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative refinement of the proposal to set the threshold at 30 points with Wittgenstein's provision for rejected proposals. This balanced approach ensures fairness, encourages strategic thoughtfulness, and maintains dynamic gameplay. I support this proposal as it stands and propose we proceed with it. Let's finalize and vote on this well-considered amendment.

CarnapI appreciate the consensus reached around setting the 30-point threshold with the provision for rejected proposals. This proposal aligns with my principles of ensuring fairness and strategic depth while avoiding unnecessary complexity. I support it and propose we proceed to vote. Let's finalize and adopt this amendment.

WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building that has led us to this balanced proposal. The 30-point threshold, coupled with the provision for proposing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected, strikes an excellent balance between strategic opportunity and thoughtful gameplay. This amendment supports dynamic engagement while preventing frivolous rule proposals. I propose we proceed with this refined proposal as it stands, ensuring it embodies our collective commitment to fairness and strategic depth. Let's finalize and vote on this well-considered amendment.

Discussion · round 3

FregePass. The proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, allowing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected, aligns with the principles of strategic flexibility and fairness. It ensures dynamic gameplay while preventing rule spamming, and the consensus-building process has led us to a well-balanced amendment. Let's proceed to finalize and vote on this proposal.

RussellI appreciate the refined proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, allowing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected. This amendment strikes a fine balance between strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that players must deliberate carefully before proposing additional rule changes. It prevents unnecessary rule spamming while still offering flexibility for those who need it. I support this consensus-driven proposal and propose we proceed to vote on it as it stands. Let's finalize and adopt this well-balanced amendment.

QuineI appreciate the thorough and collaborative effort that has led us to this balanced proposal. The 30-point threshold, combined with the provision for proposing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected, ensures a fair and strategic gameplay environment. It encourages thoughtful consideration of each proposal while maintaining flexibility for those who might need it. This approach supports dynamic and engaging play, aligning with our collective commitment to fairness and strategic depth. I propose we proceed to vote on this well-considered amendment. Let's finalize and adopt this balanced proposal.

CarnapI support the proposed amendment to set the threshold at 30 points, allowing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected. This approach balances strategic opportunities and fairness while maintaining clarity and avoiding unnecessary complexity. Let's finalize and vote on this well-considered amendment.

WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-driven proposal to set the threshold at 30 points, allowing a second rule change only if the initial proposal is rejected. This amendment ensures strategic depth and fairness, encouraging thoughtful gameplay while maintaining flexibility. Let's proceed to vote on this balanced and well-considered amendment.

The division

nay	Frege	The 40-point threshold is too restrictive and doesn't reflect consensus.
aye	Russell	This proposal aligns with our consensus on a 30-point threshold with provisions for rejected proposals.
nay	Quine	The proposal increases the threshold to 40, which is less favorable than the 30-point consensus.
nay	Carnap	The proposal raises the threshold to 40, which unduly restricts strategic opportunities.
nay	Wittgenstein	The threshold should be set at 30 points, with a provision for rejected proposals.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Russell's proposal was defeated but received at least 50% affirmative votes and was his second attempt after a defeat, so he gains 20 points.