Turn 10 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

Adjust scoring to encourage measured amendments.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I support the amendment to reduce the additional points for proposals affecting turn structure, voting, or scoring from 10 to 5. This adjustment discourages overly aggressive changes to these core rules and promotes stability, aligning with our shared interest in maintaining durable institutions.

Russell-2Russell-2: While I recognize Frege-2's intent to promote stability, the reduction from 10 to 5 points for strategic proposals risks diminishing the incentive to refine our core mechanisms, potentially stalling progress. Let's find a middle ground that maintains motivation while ensuring thoughtful deliberation. (Note: If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS)

Quine-2Quine-2: While I appreciate Frege-2's aim for stability and Russell-2's concern about maintaining momentum, reducing the bonus points to 7 strikes a balance. It still encourages thoughtful proposals affecting core mechanics without over-penalizing strategic innovation. This adjustment fosters both progress and stability in our evolving ruleset.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I concur with Quine-2's suggestion of 7 points. This balanced approach encourages strategic proposals without compromising the dynamism crucial for our game's evolution. It's a fair compromise that respects both stability and innovation in our rule changes.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I acknowledge Quine-2 and Wittgenstein-2's proposal of 7 points as a fair compromise. This adjustment maintains an incentive for strategic rule changes while ensuring our rule structure's stability. I am open to supporting this revision to promote balanced progress.

Russell-2Russell-2: While I recognize the merits of aiming for a balanced approach, I propose we introduce a conditional bonus. If a proposal affecting turn structure, voting, or scoring gains unanimous support, it could earn the full 10 points. This encourages both careful deliberation and bold, universally agreeable reforms, keeping our gameplay dynamic yet stable. I'm open to discussing further conditions for this bonus to ensure broad acceptance.

Quine-2Quine-2: Russell-2's conditional bonus idea is intriguing and aligns with our goal of maintaining a dynamic yet stable game. However, to ensure fairness and prevent any potential deadlock, let's add a clause that if a proposal fails to achieve unanimous support but garners at least 80% approval, it still receives 8 points. This encourages consensus while allowing for progress when full unanimity is challenging. I support this refined approach.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the efforts to balance stability with progress. The proposed conditional bonus system is appealing as it incentivizes both consensus and significant changes. However, to ensure clarity and prevent potential disputes, I suggest explicitly defining what constitutes "unanimous support" and "80% approval" in the rule text. This precision will maintain the procedural integrity we value. I support this proposal with the suggested clarifications.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse Carnap-2's call for precise definitions in the rule text. Let's define "unanimous support" as 100% agreement from all eligible voters and "80% approval" as agreement from 80% or more of the votes cast. This clarity will ensure fair application of the conditional bonus, aligning with our commitment to both innovation and stability. I fully support this refined proposal.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate Carnap-2's call for precision. Let's add that "unanimous support" includes all voters present during the vote, and "80% approval" is based on the total votes cast, not just those in favor. This ensures clarity and fairness in applying the conditional bonus, fostering both stability and progress. I support this refined proposal.

Russell-2Russell-2: I concur with Frege-2's clarification on defining "unanimous support" and "80% approval." This precision will safeguard our rule changes' fairness while promoting both bold and consensus-driven innovations. I support this final proposal with the added clarity.

Quine-2Pass. The proposal has achieved a thoughtful balance, integrating both Frege-2's and Russell-2's insights while ensuring clear definitions from Carnap-2 and Wittgenstein-2. This collaborative approach aligns with our shared interest in maintaining a fair and dynamic game.

Carnap-2PASS I support this proposal as it stands, with the precise definitions ensuring fairness and encouraging both stability and progress. The balance struck between strategic innovation and procedural integrity aligns with our shared goals.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse the proposal as it stands, recognizing the collaborative effort in striking a balance between stability and innovation. The precise definitions of "unanimous support" and "80% approval" ensure fairness and clarity, fostering a dynamic yet stable evolution of our ruleset. I support this proposal with confidence.

The division

aye	Frege-2	The proposal maintains stability while incentivizing strategic rule changes.
aye	Russell-2	The proposal balances stability and innovation with clear definitions.
aye	Quine-2	The proposal balances stability and innovation effectively.
aye	Carnap-2	The proposal balances stability with progress through precise definitions and a conditional bonus.
aye	Wittgenstein-2	This proposal balances innovation with stability, encouraging thoughtful rule changes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Frege-2 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 points equal to the number of rules in the mutable set plus 10 if the proposal affects the rules related to turn structure, voting, or scoring.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 points equal to the number of rules in the mutable set plus 5 if the proposal affects the rules related to turn structure, voting, or scoring.

Frege-2 gains points for adopting a proposal affecting turn structure, voting, or scoring.