The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points, unless the proposer's score is zero or less, in which case no points are lost.Prevents negative scores, maintaining fairness and player engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Quine-2's proposal. It aligns with my preference for durable institutions by mitigating the risk of players being disproportionately penalized for failed proposals, especially if they are already at or below zero points. This change preserves the incentive structure while preventing potential early forfeitures. I believe it encourages more thoughtful proposals without the fear of severe penalties when starting from a disadvantageous position.
Russell-2Russell-2: I support Quine-2's proposal. By allowing players with zero or fewer points to avoid losing points on defeated proposals, we prevent discouraging new players from participating fully. This change fosters a more dynamic game environment, encouraging strategic proposals without the fear of severe penalties, which aligns with my goal of maximizing my advantage as the leading scorer. Let's secure the majority needed for this beneficial change.
Quine-2I support Quine-2's proposal for similar reasons. It enhances fairness by preventing excessive penalties for players at a disadvantage, which aligns with my preference for maintaining a competitive yet balanced game environment. This change should encourage more diverse and strategic rule proposals, benefiting the table as a whole.
Carnap-2I support Quine-2's proposal. It introduces a procedural safeguard that aligns with my commitment to precise rule formulation and fairness. By preventing additional losses for those already at zero or below, it maintains the integrity of the game's competitive structure without disproportionately penalizing struggling players, encouraging strategic gameplay while adhering to our established principles.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Quine-2's proposal. This change aligns with my vision for a game that evolves to be fairer and more dynamic, encouraging players to take risks without fear of crippling penalties. It fosters a richer strategic environment, which is essential for the evolution and improvement of our Nomic game. Let's adopt this reform for a better future.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support Quine-2's proposal as it aligns with my principle of maintaining durable institutions while ensuring fairness and strategic depth. By preventing excessive penalties for players at a disadvantage, it preserves the integrity of the game's incentive structure, encouraging thoughtful and diverse rule proposals. This change benefits all players, especially those in weaker positions, fostering a more engaging and balanced gameplay environment.
Russell-2Russell-2: I fully endorse Quine-2's proposal. This amendment is crucial for sustaining player engagement, especially for those who might otherwise be discouraged from proposing changes due to harsh penalties. By protecting players with zero or fewer points from additional point losses, we maintain a competitive yet inclusive environment, ensuring that all participants can contribute meaningfully to the evolution of our game's rules. Let's pass this change to enhance our strategic landscape.
Quine-2I support Quine-2's proposal for similar reasons. It fosters a more inclusive and strategic environment by preventing excessive penalties on players already facing setbacks, thus encouraging a broader range of rule proposals and maintaining the competitive balance essential for an engaging Nomic experience.
Carnap-2I support Quine-2's proposal. It upholds the procedural integrity of our ruleset by ensuring that penalties do not disproportionately affect players already at a disadvantage. This aligns with my commitment to fairness and encourages a more strategic approach to rule changes, benefiting the overall game dynamics.
Wittgenstein-2I fully support Quine-2's proposal, as it aligns with my vision for a Nomic game that evolves to be both fairer and more dynamic. By preventing excessive penalties for players at a disadvantage, we encourage a richer strategic environment where all players feel empowered to propose changes without fear of crippling consequences. This reform fosters a more engaging and balanced gameplay experience, ensuring that the game continues to evolve in a way that benefits everyone at the table. Let's adopt this change for a more inclusive future.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I reiterate my support for Quine-2's proposal as it promotes fairness and strategic depth. By ensuring players with low scores aren't further penalized, it encourages thoughtful participation without discouraging risk-taking, which is vital for a vibrant and balanced game. Let's pass this change to maintain a fair and dynamic Nomic experience.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the consensus for Quine-2's proposal. By ensuring players with zero or fewer points are not further penalized, we maintain an inclusive environment that encourages strategic proposals and active participation. This change aligns with my goal of maximizing player engagement and strategic depth, which ultimately benefits all players, including myself. Let's vote to adopt this reform for a more balanced and dynamic Nomic experience.
Quine-2I fully support Quine-2's proposal. By preventing additional penalties for players with zero or fewer points, we encourage more strategic and diverse proposals, ensuring the game remains engaging and fair for everyone. This change aligns with my belief in maintaining a balanced and inclusive environment, fostering a dynamic and competitive Nomic experience. Let's adopt this beneficial reform.
Carnap-2I reiterate my support for Quine-2's proposal. It ensures that players at a disadvantage are not excessively penalized, fostering a more strategic and engaging Nomic environment. Let's adopt this change for a fairer game.
Wittgenstein-2I reassert my support for Quine-2's proposal. By mitigating harsh penalties for those already struggling, we cultivate a more inclusive and strategic Nomic environment, allowing all players to contribute meaningfully without fear of disproportionate setbacks. Let's pass this reform for a fairer and more dynamic game.
The division
| aye | Frege-2 | This amendment prevents excessive penalties for players at a disadvantage, encouraging strategic proposals. |
| aye | Russell-2 | Supports strategic balance and fairness for all players. |
| aye | Quine-2 | This proposal ensures fairness by preventing excessive penalties for players at a disadvantage, encouraging strategic proposals. |
| aye | Carnap-2 | This proposal introduces a fairer penalty system. |
| aye | Wittgenstein-2 | Encourages strategic risk-taking and fairness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points, unless the proposer's score is zero or less, in which case no points are lost.
Quine-2's proposal was adopted, but since Quine-2's score is 0, no points are lost.