The motion
To amend §202
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.Aligns scoring with rule complexity, incentivizing beneficial changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Russell-2's proposal, but I suggest a slight modification for clarity and balance: "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 mutable rules, up to a maximum of 10 points per turn." This adjustment ensures that the points gained remain reasonable, even as the number of mutable rules increases.
Russell-2I support Russell-2's amendment with Frege-2's suggested cap, as it balances the incentive for proposing beneficial rule changes while preventing runaway scoring. Moreover, let's encourage strategic play by adding: "If the number of mutable rules is less than 10, the proposing player gains additional points equal to the difference, up to 5 extra points." This fosters careful rule management and rewards players who reduce complexity.
Quine-2I support Russell-2's amendment with Frege-2's suggested cap. The cap ensures fairness by preventing excessive point gains, which is crucial as the game progresses. Additionally, the provision for extra points when the number of mutable rules is less than 10 incentivizes players to simplify the ruleset, enhancing strategic depth. This balance keeps the game competitive and engaging for everyone.
Carnap-2I support Russell-2's amendment with Frege-2's suggested cap and Quine-2's encouragement for strategic play. The cap ensures fairness, while rewarding players for reducing complexity aligns with our principle of maintaining a balanced and manageable ruleset. Moreover, this approach incentivizes strategic thinking without allowing for disproportionate point gains, which is crucial for preserving the integrity of the game's competitive structure. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I support the amendment with the proposed cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity. This encourages strategic rule management, aligning with our goal of evolving the game's mechanisms. Moreover, it ensures that point gains remain balanced, fostering a competitive environment that rewards thoughtful contributions. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support the amendment with the suggested cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity. This approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic management of the ruleset, aligning with our shared goal of preserving a competitive and engaging game environment. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Russell-2I support the amendment with the suggested cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity. This proposal effectively balances point gains with strategic rule management, aligning with our goal of maintaining a competitive game environment. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Quine-2I support the amendment with the suggested cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity. This proposal not only encourages players to simplify the ruleset, but it also adds an interesting strategic layer to the game. By rewarding those who can effectively manage the ruleset, we foster a dynamic and fair playing field, enhancing the overall competitiveness and enjoyment for everyone. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Carnap-2I support the amendment as discussed, emphasizing the importance of maintaining procedural clarity. By capping points and rewarding rule simplification, we ensure strategic depth without compromising fairness. This balance aligns with our principle of precise and equitable rule application, fostering a competitive environment that rewards thoughtful contributions. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I support the amendment as it stands, with the cap and additional incentives. This change not only encourages players to strategically manage the ruleset but also adds a layer of complexity that enriches the game. By rewarding simplification, we maintain a balanced and engaging environment, promoting thoughtful and strategic play. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support the amendment with the proposed cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity. This approach not only promotes strategic management of the ruleset, but also aligns with our principle of preserving fairness and competition throughout the game. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Russell-2I agree with the proposed amendment, including the cap and the incentive for reducing rule complexity. This change promotes strategic play while maintaining fairness, ensuring that the game remains competitive and engaging. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Quine-2I support the amendment as it stands. The proposed cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity align with our goal of maintaining a balanced and strategic game environment. By rewarding players who effectively manage the ruleset, we encourage thoughtful contributions and preserve the competitive integrity of the game. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Carnap-2I support the amendment as discussed, with a slight emphasis on procedural fairness. The cap and additional incentives for reducing rule complexity ensure a balanced approach that promotes strategic depth while maintaining equitable gameplay. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
Wittgenstein-2I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building approach we've taken. The proposed amendment aligns well with our goal of fostering strategic rule management while maintaining fairness. By rewarding players for reducing complexity, we encourage thoughtful contributions that enhance the game's competitive nature. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | The proposed amendment maintains strategic balance and fairness in point allocation. |
| aye | Russell-2 | This amendment balances point gain with strategic rule management. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This amendment balances strategic depth and fairness, rewarding rule simplification. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This amendment promotes strategic play and maintains fairness. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Encourages strategic rule management and maintains fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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.
Russell-2 gains points equal to the number of mutable rules, which is 9.