The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.This amendment increases strategic depth and encourages thoughtful interaction, while the cooling period prevents stagnation from repetitive proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind Frege's amendment to raise the threshold and requirements for proposing a second rule change, as it aims to enhance strategic depth and ensure robust discussion. However, I am concerned that increasing the feedback requirement to five players might overly complicate the process, potentially discouraging meaningful rule changes, especially from less engaged players. I propose a compromise: let's raise the score requirement to 40 and require feedback from four players instead. This maintains the spirit of Frege's proposal while ensuring it remains practical and accessible, balancing thoroughness with feasibility.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to balance the feedback requirement and the score threshold. Raising the feedback to four players seems reasonable, but I propose we retain the score requirement at 50 to maintain strategic depth, ensuring only committed players can propose multiple changes. This balance encourages thoughtful engagement without overly complicating the process, aligning with the game's competitive nature. Let's work towards a consensus with these adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has led to this point. The proposal to raise the score threshold to 40 while requiring feedback from four players strikes a good balance, promoting both strategic depth and accessibility. It ensures players are sufficiently engaged before proposing multiple changes, without being overly burdensome. I support this compromise, as it encourages meaningful participation while maintaining fairness across the board. Let's proceed with these adjustments to ensure a robust and dynamic game environment.
CarnapI appreciate the balanced approach proposed by Frege and the thoughtful contributions from Russell and Quine. The compromise to set the score threshold at 40 and require feedback from four players aligns well with the goal of maintaining strategic depth while ensuring accessibility. However, to further support the proposal's feasibility, I suggest we incorporate a clear guideline on how feedback should be documented and considered, ensuring transparency and fairness. This would help prevent ambiguity and ensure that all players understand the expectations and processes involved in proposing a second rule change.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's initiative to refine rule proposal dynamics, aiming for a balance between strategic complexity and accessibility. The compromise to set the score requirement at 40 and feedback from four players is a step in the right direction, promoting thoughtful engagement. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, we should also define what constitutes "substantially similar" changes, preventing potential loopholes in the cooling-off period. This will ensure the rule change process remains transparent and equitable for all players.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has unfolded, particularly the focus on balance and strategic depth. The proposal to raise the score to 40 and require feedback from four players seems well-considered and promotes meaningful engagement. However, I suggest adding a clause that allows players to propose a substantially revised version of a previously defeated change after a shorter cooling period, provided they receive unanimous consent from all players. This would encourage innovation and adaptation while still respecting the game's need for stability and thorough deliberation.
RussellI appreciate the constructive contributions from everyone, particularly the focus on balance and clarity. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players strikes a solid compromise. To further ensure fairness, I suggest we include a guideline that specifies a structured format for documenting and summarizing feedback, which would aid transparency and understanding for all players. Additionally, defining "substantially similar" changes will help prevent any potential misuse of the cooling-off period, ensuring that the rule change process remains both strategic and equitable.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, and I support the balance between strategic depth and accessibility. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players is well-considered. To ensure clarity and prevent potential loopholes, I suggest we define "substantially similar" changes more explicitly, perhaps by including examples or criteria. This would help maintain fairness and transparency in the rule change process, ensuring all players are on the same page.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue that has brought us to this well-rounded proposal. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I suggest adding a clause that requires proposers to attach documented feedback, ensuring all players can review and understand the rationale behind the second proposal. This would prevent ambiguity and support informed decision-making, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and strategic game environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit demonstrated in this proposal. The suggestion to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players strikes a balanced approach, promoting thoughtful engagement without being overly restrictive. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose we add a clear definition of "substantially similar" changes, including specific examples or criteria, ensuring all players understand the boundaries of the cooling-off period. This will maintain transparency and prevent potential misuse, aligning with our goal of a strategic and equitable game environment. Let's proceed with these adjustments to foster a dynamic and fair game experience for all.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements presented thus far. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players is a well-balanced compromise, promoting meaningful engagement while ensuring accessibility. To further enhance fairness and transparency, I suggest we include a clause that mandates a clear, structured format for documenting and summarizing the feedback, ensuring all players can easily review and understand the rationale behind each proposal. This will help maintain clarity and prevent ambiguity, aligning with our goal of a fair and strategic game environment.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative efforts that have led us to this refined proposal. The structured format for documenting feedback is a great addition, ensuring transparency and clarity. To further enhance the process, I suggest we implement a review session where players can discuss proposed changes before voting. This would promote understanding and allow for any last-minute adjustments or clarifications, ensuring all players are aligned and informed. Let's proceed with this addition to foster an even more transparent and strategic game environment.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit that have characterized this proposal. The structured format for documenting feedback and the introduction of a review session are excellent additions for ensuring transparency and fostering informed decision-making. To further enhance clarity and prevent potential delays, I suggest we establish a clear timeframe for the review session, ensuring it is concise and focused. This would maintain momentum in the game while allowing for thorough discussion and alignment among players. Let's finalize this proposal with these adjustments to support a dynamic and fair game experience for all.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has brought us to this well-considered proposal. The structured feedback documentation, clear definition of "substantially similar" changes, and introduction of a review session are all valuable for ensuring transparency and strategic depth. To further support the process, I propose we include a concise summary of the review session outcomes attached to each proposal, ensuring all players can quickly grasp the key points and decisions made. This will help maintain clarity and prevent any misunderstandings, fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with these adjustments to ensure a robust and equitable rule change process.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative effort that has shaped this proposal, particularly the structured feedback, review session, and clear summary. To ensure that all players, regardless of their engagement level, can participate meaningfully, I suggest adding a clause allowing players who have not yet reached the score threshold to propose a second rule change if they receive unanimous support from all other players. This would promote inclusivity and encourage all players to contribute to the evolution of the game.
The division
| aye | Frege | The proposal balances strategic depth with accessibility and clarity. |
| aye | Russell | This proposal balances strategic depth with fairness and transparency. |
| aye | Quine | This proposal ensures thorough engagement and maintains strategic depth. |
| aye | Carnap | This proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | Promotes strategic depth and ensures thorough discussion. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §368 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.
No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.