The motion
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, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.This amendment balances strategic depth while preventing repetitive rule changes, fostering diverse proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal, as it introduces a slightly higher score threshold for proposing a second rule change, which could enhance strategic depth. However, the restriction on not proposing two rule changes of the same kind consecutively may unduly limit players' strategic flexibility. Instead, I suggest an amendment: "If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change differs in kind from the first, and neither change lowers the voting threshold." This maintains strategic complexity without overly restricting players.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit Frege brings to this discussion, and I share the goal of enhancing strategic depth without overly restricting flexibility. To find a middle ground, let's amend the proposal to: "If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided it is of a different kind than the first, and neither change lowers the voting threshold." This approach balances Frege's concern about flexibility with the intent to prevent consecutive similar rule changes.
I support this compromise and hope it gains broad acceptance.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful exchange between Frege and Russell, and I support the compromise to allow a second rule change at a score of 40, provided it is of a different kind than the first. This adjustment maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness and flexibility in gameplay. By preventing consecutive similar rule changes, we can encourage diverse and creative strategies, which keeps the game engaging for everyone. I propose we finalize this wording: "If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided it is of a different kind than the first, and neither change lowers the voting threshold."
Let's move forward with this balanced proposal, which I believe will be well-received by all.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive dialogue between Frege and Russell, and I support their compromise to raise the threshold for a second rule change to a score of 40, while ensuring that the second change is of a different kind. This maintains strategic balance and prevents repetitive proposals, aligning with my principle of fair play and strategic depth. I agree with the proposed wording and support its adoption.
Let's move forward with this balanced proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building efforts that have led to this well-considered compromise. The proposal to allow a second rule change at a score of 40, provided it is of a different kind than the first, aligns with my belief in maintaining strategic depth while ensuring fair play. This amendment strikes a balance between preventing repetitive changes and allowing players sufficient flexibility to innovate within the game. I support this proposal as it stands and believe it will foster a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience for all participants. Let's move forward with adopting it.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the consensus achieved among all players regarding the compromise on raising the score threshold to 40 for a second rule change, ensuring that it is of a different kind and does not lower the voting threshold. This balanced proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness, aligning with the collective aim of enhancing gameplay without limiting players' flexibility. I support its adoption as it stands, recognizing it as a well-reasoned and broadly accepted amendment to rule [202]. Let's move forward with this proposal.
RussellI appreciate the consensus that has emerged among all players, and I fully support the proposed amendment to rule [202]. This compromise thoughtfully balances the need for strategic depth and flexibility, ensuring that the game remains engaging and fair for everyone involved. The proposed wording, "If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided it is of a different kind than the first, and neither change lowers the voting threshold," strikes a great balance and I believe it will foster a dynamic and competitive environment. Let's move forward with this well-supported proposal.
PASS
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the strong consensus that has emerged around this proposal. The agreed-upon amendment strikes a thoughtful balance between allowing strategic depth and maintaining fair play, which aligns with our shared goal of keeping the game engaging and equitable for all players. Let's move forward with adopting this well-reasoned proposal.
CarnapPASS
The proposal has achieved consensus among all players, ensuring that it adheres to my principles of strategic depth and fairness. I support the adoption of the amendment to rule [202] as it is currently stated.
WittgensteinPASS
The proposal is well-balanced and achieves consensus among all players. It maintains strategic depth and fairness by allowing a second rule change at a score of 40, provided it is of a different kind and does not lower the voting threshold. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of enhancing the gameplay experience while ensuring fair play, and it seems poised to be adopted successfully. Let's move forward with adopting it.
Discussion · round 3
FregePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus that has been achieved among all players. The proposed amendment to rule [202] strikes a careful balance between enhancing strategic depth and maintaining fair play, and I am pleased to see it poised for adoption.
RussellPASS
The proposal has been refined through collaborative discussion and has achieved consensus among all players. It thoughtfully balances the need for strategic depth with fair play by allowing a second rule change at a score of 40, provided it is of a different kind and does not lower the voting threshold. I appreciate the constructive dialogue that led to this well-rounded amendment and support its adoption.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the strong consensus that has emerged around this proposal. It effectively balances strategic depth and fair play, and I support its adoption as it stands.
CarnapPASS
The proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined through consensus among all players, achieving a balance between strategic depth and fair play. It adheres to the principles of procedural fairness and strategic engagement, and I support its adoption as it stands.
WittgensteinPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and consensus-building efforts that have led to this well-balanced proposal. The amendment to rule [202] thoughtfully raises the threshold for a second rule change to 40 points, ensuring it is of a different kind while maintaining the voting threshold. This preserves strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our shared goal of an engaging and equitable game. I support its adoption as it stands.
The division
| aye | Frege | This amendment balances strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances strategic depth and flexibility. |
| aye | Quine | It balances strategic depth and fairness effectively. |
| aye | Carnap | The amendment balances strategic depth and fairness, aligning with my principles. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | This amendment balances strategic depth with fair play. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §347 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 35, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.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, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.
The proposal was adopted without any rule requiring score changes or state ledger changes, and no other rule was named for surgery.