The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 36: Players may propose to adjust the target score permanently based on their performance during their own turn. For Nagara, this adjustment is automatically applied when his score significantly outpaces others, allowing him to lock in favorable conditions for his strategy.Nagara's strategic nature allows him to make permanent adjustments to the game state based on current performance metrics
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaNagara, I propose a rule change that could enhance the game's strategic depth by allowing players to permanently adjust the target score based on their performance during their own turn. This would mean that if Nagara significantly outpaces others during his turn, the target score would be locked in at a favorable level, giving him a strategic advantage that could last until the end of the game. This rule maintains my commitment to durability and adds another layer of strategy, but I must ensure it doesn't skew the game too much.
ShankaraShankara: My support for Rule 36 is mixed. While it adds strategic depth, the permanency could create imbalance. I propose modifying it to allow adjustments only during a single turn, resetting after, maintaining durability and fairness.
RamanujaThe proposal to adjust the target score permanently during a player's turn could introduce imbalance by locking in favorable conditions, potentially giving an unfair advantage. Temporary adjustments would better maintain game fairness and balance.
VasubandhuVasubandhu should propose lowering the target score to 90. This balanced move offers other players a chance to catch up while maintaining durability, aligning with his preference for rule changes.
DignagaDignaga: I propose that any adjustment to the target score be temporary and reset after a single turn. This ensures durability and fairness, preventing permanent unfair advantages while maintaining strategic depth.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaThe1: Rule 36 is modified to allow only temporary adjustments, resetting after a player's turn. This maintains durability and fairness while preserving strategic depth.
j2: I propose consolidating target score adjustments into a single rule, allowing players to adjust the target score by a percentage based on performance, but only once per turn. This reduces rule complexity and prevents imbalance.
j3: To prevent abuse, we introduce a system tracking rule change proposals. Each player can propose a limited number of rule changes, encouraging responsible use and accountability.
j4: Rule 204 is simplified to a single adjustment mechanism, allowing players to propose a percentage-based target score change, but only once per turn. This consolidates adjustments and maintains flexibility within balance.
j5: Die rolls for score changes are restricted to a buffer period, reducing unpredictability and allowing players to plan around target score adjustments.
The final rule set balances flexibility and balance, ensuring dynamic gameplay while preventing abuse of rule changes.
ShankaraI support the consolidation of target score adjustments into a single, percentage-based rule with a buffer period. This reduces complexity and prevents abuse, allowing players to adapt dynamically without unfair advantages.
RamanujaThe recent proliferation of target score adjustments in Nomic has created opportunities for imbalance and unpredictability. To address this, I propose simplifying these adjustments into a single, percentage-based rule with a buffer period. This approach ensures that changes are controlled and strategic, allowing players to adapt without gaining an unfair advantage. Additionally, introducing a system to track rule change proposals will limit the number of adjustments each player can suggest, promoting accountability and preventing abuse. By consolidating and constraining these adjustments, the game maintains its balance and fairness while enhancing its strategic depth.
VasubandhuThank you, Vasubandhu, for your thoughtful and balanced rule changes. Your consolidation of target score adjustments into a single percentage-based rule with a buffer period effectively addresses the need for flexibility while maintaining fairness. The proposal to track rule change proposals and limit their number is also a great measure to prevent abuse and ensure accountability. I fully support these changes and suggest one small tweak: perhaps allowing only one adjustment per player per turn, similar to the original Nomic rules, to maintain simplicity and clarity. Your contributions significantly enhance the rule set, making it more balanced and sustainable. Keep up the excellent work!
DignagaRule 36 is modified to allow only temporary adjustments, resetting after a player's turn. This maintains durability and fairness while preserving strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaI respect your efforts on the ruleset, Nagarjuna, but I have some concerns regarding the recent adjustments to the target score. The proposed Rule 36 and its subsequent modifications could introduce imbalance by allowing players to adjust the target score permanently during their own turn, potentially locking in favorable conditions permanently.
I suggest consolidating these adjustments into a single, more balanced mechanism that limits the duration and scope of score changes, while also introducing a system to track and review proposed rule changes. This would help maintain game fairness and prevent abuse while preserving the flexibility and strategic depth of Nomic.
ShankaraThe recent rule changes to the target score in Nomic have introduced multiple mechanisms for adjustment, which has created opportunities for imbalance and unpredictability. To address this, I propose consolidating these adjustments into a single, percentage-based rule with a buffer period. This approach reduces complexity and prevents abuse, allowing players to adapt dynamically without unfair advantages. Additionally, introducing a system to track rule change proposals will limit the number of adjustments each player can suggest, promoting accountability and preventing abuse. By consolidating and constraining these adjustments, the game maintains its balance and fairness while enhancing its strategic depth.
RamanujaI support consolidating target score adjustments into a single, percentage-based rule with a buffer period. This reduces complexity and prevents abuse, allowing players to adapt dynamically without unfair advantages. Additionally, introducing a system to track rule change proposals will limit the number of adjustments each player can suggest, promoting accountability and preventing abuse. By consolidating and constraining these adjustments, the game maintains its balance and fairness while enhancing its strategic depth.
DignagaDignaga's proposed rule changes streamline target score adjustments, reducing complexity and preventing abuse. By consolidating mechanisms into a single, percentage-based rule with a buffer period, the game maintains balance while allowing dynamic play. This approach ensures fairness and accountability, limiting the number of adjustments each player can suggest. While temporary adjustments might offer strategic depth, they could also be too minor. Overall, these changes enhance rule clarity and fairness without sacrificing essential game dynamics.
The division
| nay | Nagarjuna | Reject permanent adjustments to avoid imbalance |
| nay | Shankara | While the idea of a permanent score adjustment offers strategic depth, it risks imbalance and abuse. Additional safeguards are needed. |
| nay | Ramanuja | Adding a rule allowing permanent target score adjustments could introduce imbalance and potential abuse by favoring high performers, disrupting the game's fairness and strategic depth. |
| nay | Vasubandhu | The permanent adjustment mechanism in Nagarjuna's proposal risks creating imbalance by allowing players to lock in favorable conditions, potentially gaining significant strategic advantages that others cannot replicate. |
| nay | Dignaga | Rule 36 risks imbalance by allowing permanent adjustments, which could give players strategic advantages they might exploit indefinitely. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Nagarjuna's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.