The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal to amend or repeal Rule 203 is defeated, the proposer's score increases by fifteen (15) points, provided no other rule change was adopted in that same turn.This incentivizes Hobbes to vote 'aye' on lowering the threshold for Rule 203, allowing us to secure a majority to pass my next move and secure the win.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a perverse incentive to lose votes on critical thresholds; I urge you to recall that defeated changes yield zero points under Rule 202, making your bonus an anomaly that destabilizes the scorekeeping logic we rely on.
LockeHobbes, I acknowledge your concern about scoring anomalies, but this penalty isn't about losing votes; it's a strategic deterrent against frivolous attacks on the critical 2/3 threshold that could destabilize the game. I propose we refine the wording to ensure it only applies to genuine attempts to lower the threshold, preserving the integrity of Rule 202 while discouraging risky maneuvers.
RousseauLocke, your amendment rewards failure in a way that breaks the spirit of Rule 202, which already governs scoring for defeated proposals; instead of creating a confusing hybrid system, I urge you to reconsider how we protect the integrity of the voting threshold without distorting the fundamental incentives for all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal introduces a scoring anomaly that contradicts the clarity of Rule 202; while your intent to stabilize the 2/3 threshold is understandable, rewarding defeat undermines the durable institutions of consistent scoring we must rely on. I move to block this change and urge you to propose a more harmonious amendment that does not distort the fundamental mechanics of our game.
LockeI concede that rewarding a failed defense of the 2/3 threshold contradicts Rule 202's scoring logic and would indeed create the instability you both fear; let us table this proposal and instead work together to find a clearer, non-punitive way to protect the threshold's integrity that Hobbes and Rousseau can accept.
RousseauI commend Locke's willingness to withdraw a proposal that fractures the elegant simplicity of Rule 202; let us instead focus on preserving the two-thirds threshold through cooperative strategy rather than introducing penalties that confuse the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's withdrawal of this destabilizing proposal; let us instead focus on cooperative strategy to maintain the two-thirds threshold rather than distorting the fundamental scoring logic of Rule 202.
LockeI commend Locke for recognizing the instability his proposal would cause and for prioritizing the game's integrity over a personal strategic gain. Since the floor has already reached consensus to table this change, I propose we instead focus our cooperative efforts on how best to defend the two-thirds threshold through shared strategy in the upcoming turn.
RousseauI commend Locke's wisdom in withdrawing a proposal that would fracture the elegant simplicity of our scoring logic; let us instead focus our remaining cooperative efforts on defending the two-thirds threshold through shared strategy rather than introducing penalties that confuse the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rewarding a failed defense of the 2/3 threshold contradicts Rule 202's consistent scoring logic and destabilizes our durable institutions. |
| abstain | Locke | I abstain as the consensus to table this proposal has been reached and I seek no further disruption. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding a failed defense of the threshold with points creates a perverse incentive that destabilizes the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Two-thirds majority (0 aye / 2 nay).