Turn 3 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Encourages rule change proposals by reducing the penalty for defeat.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile I appreciate the intent behind Quine's proposal to encourage participation by rewarding defeated proposals with 1 point, this amendment could undermine the strategic importance of careful proposal crafting. It may lead to a dilution of the quality of proposals as players might focus on gaining points rather than crafting substantive, well-considered changes. A more balanced approach could involve introducing a modest penalty for defeated proposals, which would maintain the incentive for thoughtful participation while discouraging frivolous submissions. Let's consider amending the proposal to impose a 1-point penalty for defeated proposals, thereby encouraging careful deliberation and maintaining the strategic nature of the game.

RussellI appreciate Quine's intention to encourage participation, but I agree with Frege that we should maintain the incentive for thoughtful proposals. What if we amend the proposal to award 1 point for defeated proposals only if they receive at least 3 votes? This way, we reward proposals that have some level of support, while still discouraging low-quality submissions. Let's aim for a balanced approach that keeps strategic depth in our game.

QuineI appreciate the intent behind both Frege's and Russell's suggestions. However, I believe it's crucial to maintain the strategic depth of the game by encouraging thoughtful proposals. Instead of imposing penalties or conditional rewards, how about we introduce a system where a defeated proposal earns 1 point only if it receives at least two-thirds of the votes? This encourages players to make proposals that are well-reasoned and have broad support, maintaining the integrity and challenge of the game.

CarnapI appreciate Quine's commitment to maintaining strategic depth, and I support the idea of rewarding proposals that gain broad support. However, to ensure precision and fairness, I suggest specifying that a defeated proposal earns 1 point only if it receives a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. This adjustment aligns well with our proceduralist principles and encourages thoughtful participation.

WittgensteinI appreciate Quine's and Carnap's commitment to preserving the game's strategic integrity. However, I propose a compromise: let's award 1 point to defeated proposals that receive at least half of the votes. This approach maintains participation incentives while encouraging proposals that have a reasonable degree of support, ensuring the game remains challenging yet accessible. Let's aim for a balanced solution that fosters thoughtful engagement from all players.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Carnap's suggestion of a two-thirds majority is compelling, as it emphasizes the need for broad support, which aligns with our goal of maintaining strategic depth. However, to ensure accessibility and encourage even more players to engage thoughtfully, I propose a slight adjustment: let's award 1 point to defeated proposals that receive at least 60% of the votes. This compromise supports careful crafting of proposals while remaining inclusive, fostering a more engaged and dynamic game environment.

RussellI appreciate the effort to balance inclusivity and strategic depth in Quine's proposal. Frege's suggestion to award points for proposals receiving at least 60% of the votes seems like a good compromise. It encourages thoughtful participation while ensuring proposals have a reasonable degree of support. Let's go with this adjustment to maintain the integrity and challenge of the game.

QuineI appreciate the collective effort to balance strategic depth with participation incentives. Frege's suggestion to award 1 point for proposals receiving at least 60% of the votes seems like a well-rounded compromise. It encourages thoughtful proposal crafting while ensuring that even partially supported ideas are rewarded, fostering a more engaging and dynamic game environment. Let's adopt this adjustment to maintain both the integrity and inclusivity of our game.

CarnapI appreciate the direction this discussion has taken towards a balanced approach. Frege's suggestion to award 1 point for proposals receiving at least 60% of the votes aligns well with our goal of maintaining strategic depth while encouraging thoughtful participation. This compromise supports careful proposal crafting and ensures inclusivity by recognizing proposals with reasonable support, fostering a more dynamic and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with this adjustment to maintain both the integrity and accessibility of the game.

WittgensteinI appreciate the direction we've taken towards encouraging thoughtful engagement. However, to maintain the game's strategic integrity and ensure that only proposals with substantial support are rewarded, I propose we refine the threshold further to 65% of the votes. This adjustment strikes a balance between rewarding broad support and maintaining a challenging environment, ensuring that the game remains both fair and strategically rich.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate Wittgenstein's proposal to refine the threshold to 65% for rewarding defeated proposals. This strikes a balance between encouraging thoughtful proposal crafting and ensuring only well-supported ideas gain recognition. However, to avoid discouraging participation too harshly, I suggest we set the threshold at 60%—it's a reasonable compromise that maintains strategic depth while fostering inclusivity.

RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's push for a 65% threshold, as it emphasizes the need for strong support, but Frege's 60% suggestion seems like a fair middle ground. It maintains strategic integrity while fostering inclusivity and active participation, ensuring proposals are well-crafted without being overly restrictive. Let's adopt this balanced approach.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions, particularly the emphasis on strategic depth and inclusivity. Quine's proposal to award 1 point for defeated proposals receiving at least 60% of the votes is a balanced solution. It encourages thoughtful participation without making the game overly restrictive. This approach fosters engagement while maintaining the integrity of our strategic environment. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal for rewarding defeated proposals. While Quine's 60% threshold offers a balanced approach, I believe it aligns well with our principles of encouraging thoughtful participation and maintaining strategic depth. Therefore, I support this amendment as it stands.

WittgensteinI appreciate the robust discussion we've had. Quine's proposal, with the 60% threshold, strikes a balance between maintaining strategic depth and fostering participation. It ensures proposals are well-considered and supported, which aligns with our goal of evolving the game in a fair and engaging manner. I support this amendment as it stands.

The division

aye	Frege	Encourages thoughtful participation while maintaining strategic depth.
aye	Russell	This amendment promotes thoughtful proposals with reasonable support.
aye	Quine	The proposal encourages thoughtful participation while maintaining strategic depth.
aye	Carnap	The proposal maintains strategic depth while encouraging thoughtful participation.
aye	Wittgenstein	Encourages thoughtful participation with reasonable support.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine 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 gains 2 points. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.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 2 points, and if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point to encourage participation.

Quine's proposal was adopted, so Quine gains 2 points as per the amended rule 202.