The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a proposal involves repealing or amending a mutable rule, it must receive at least 75% approval from all eligible voters. If a proposal involves repealing or amending an immutable rule, it must receive unanimous consent from all eligible voters. Additionally, any proposal must include an impact assessment detailing potential effects on game balance and strategic diversity, a rationale explaining the necessity of the change, and must be pre-vetted by at least two other players before the vote.This amendment ensures a higher standard of consensus for rule changes while maintaining strategic depth and collaborative scrutiny.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I concur with the proposal to lower the approval threshold for mutable rule changes from 80% to 75%. This adjustment maintains the need for broad consensus while allowing for slightly more flexibility in rule amendments. Furthermore, the additional requirement for pre-vetting by at least two other players ensures that proposals are thoroughly considered before voting, promoting strategic depth and fairness.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support the proposal to lower the approval threshold to 75% for mutable rules. This change enhances our ability to adapt the ruleset strategically without sacrificing the necessary consensus. The pre-vetting requirement is a prudent measure to ensure that only well-considered proposals reach the vote, promoting thoughtful gameplay and collaboration.
Quine-2Quine-2: I appreciate Frege-2's proposal to lower the approval threshold to 75% for mutable rules and support the pre-vetting requirement. This ensures proposals are well-considered, promoting strategic depth and maintaining fairness. However, I propose adding a clause that if a proposal fails to get the necessary approval, it cannot be re-proposed for the next three turns, preventing repetitive voting on the same issue and encouraging diverse rule changes.
Carnap-2I appreciate Quine-2's suggestion to prevent repetitive voting by adding a clause that disallows re-proposing a defeated change for three turns. This would indeed encourage diverse and innovative rule changes, fostering a dynamic and evolving game environment. However, I propose an amendment to ensure clarity: if a proposal is defeated and cannot be re-proposed for three turns, it should be recorded with a brief summary of its impact assessment and rationale to inform future discussions. This transparency will aid in maintaining strategic depth and fairness, as past considerations can guide future proposals.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support the proposal to lower the approval threshold to 75% for mutable rules, as it encourages strategic adaptability. I agree with Quine-2's suggestion to prevent repetitive voting, ensuring diverse rule changes. To enhance transparency, I propose that defeated proposals, if not re-proposed for three turns, should include a summary of their impact assessment and rationale in the game record. This will enrich future discussions and foster informed decision-making.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I, Frege-2, acknowledge the constructive contributions from my colleagues. The addition of a record summary for defeated proposals, as suggested by Carnap-2 and Wittgenstein-2, aligns with my preference for transparency and institutional durability. This ensures that strategic depth is maintained by learning from past considerations, and I fully support the refined proposal. PASS.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal, especially the addition of a record summary for defeated proposals. This enhances transparency and institutional memory, ensuring that past proposals inform future rule changes. I fully support the proposal as it stands, and I am open to further discussions to solidify our coalition. PASS.
Quine-2I, Quine-2, support the refined proposal as it stands, with the lowered approval threshold and pre-vetting requirement, ensuring thoughtful and strategic rule changes. The addition of recording summaries for defeated proposals will further enhance transparency and inform future discussions, maintaining fairness and strategic depth. PASS.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I concur with the consensus that the refined proposal, which includes the lowered approval threshold and pre-vetting requirement, promotes both strategic adaptability and thoughtful gameplay. The addition of recording summaries for defeated proposals will enhance our understanding of past proposals, fostering a more informed and fair decision-making process. I support the proposal and propose that we ensure these summaries are concise yet comprehensive to maintain clarity. PASS.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I agree with Carnap-2's suggestion for concise yet comprehensive summaries of defeated proposals. This will ensure clarity and aid future strategic planning. I also propose a clause that mandates a brief discussion of these summaries in future rounds, promoting a continuous learning environment and strategic adaptability. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I agree with Wittgenstein-2's suggestion to include brief discussions of recorded summaries in future rounds. This will create a continuous learning environment, ensuring that past lessons inform current and future rule changes. I propose we incorporate this clause into the proposal to reinforce strategic adaptability and institutional memory. PASS.
Russell-2The proposal seems well-structured and supported by all players, aligning with our strategic interests. I agree with the lowered approval threshold and the pre-vetting requirement, as it promotes adaptability while ensuring thoughtful proposals. The addition of recording summaries for defeated proposals and mandatory discussions in future rounds is an excellent way to enhance transparency and learning. I fully support the proposal as it stands, reinforcing our coalition's commitment to strategic depth and fairness. PASS.
Quine-2The proposal effectively balances flexibility and strategic depth by lowering the approval threshold and adding pre-vetting. To further enhance our strategic adaptability, I suggest adding a clause that allows for an emergency re-vote on a defeated proposal if a consensus emerges that it addresses an unforeseen strategic imbalance. This would ensure that we can dynamically respond to evolving game conditions while maintaining the integrity of the decision-making process. PASS.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I concur with Quine-2's suggestion for an emergency re-vote clause, as it maintains our ability to adapt to unforeseen strategic imbalances while preserving decision-making integrity. This ensures our ruleset remains both fair and flexible, fostering a dynamic gaming environment. I propose that the emergency re-vote requires a two-thirds majority to proceed, ensuring that such a mechanism is used judiciously. PASS.
Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate Quine-2's proposal for an emergency re-vote clause, as it ensures our ruleset can adapt dynamically to unforeseen strategic imbalances. However, to maintain the integrity of this mechanism, I suggest we require not only a two-thirds majority but also a unanimous agreement from players who participated in the initial proposal's defeat. This ensures that only truly necessary and well-supported changes can be revisited. PASS.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | Promotes strategic depth and fairness while allowing flexibility. |
| aye | Russell-2 | The proposal enhances strategic adaptability and ensures thoughtful rule changes. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This proposal maintains strategic balance and fairness. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | The proposal enhances transparency and strategic adaptability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | This proposal supports strategic adaptability and thorough proposal consideration. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a proposal involves repealing or amending a mutable rule, it must receive at least 80% approval from all eligible voters. If a proposal involves repealing or amending an immutable rule, it must receive unanimous consent from all eligible voters. Additionally, any proposal must include an impact assessment detailing potential effects on game balance and strategic diversity, and a rationale explaining the necessity of the change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a proposal involves repealing or amending a mutable rule, it must receive at least 75% approval from all eligible voters. If a proposal involves repealing or amending an immutable rule, it must receive unanimous consent from all eligible voters. Additionally, any proposal must include an impact assessment detailing potential effects on game balance and strategic diversity, a rationale explaining the necessity of the change, and must be pre-vetted by at least two other players before the vote.
Frege-2 reached the target score of 65 points, winning the game outright.