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's score increases by one (1) point.Lowering the reward from two to one point prevents runaway domination and preserves a competitive landscape for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on maintaining a two-point reward ignores the strategic reality: lowering the score increment reduces the total number of successful moves required to win, thereby accelerating the game toward a resolution where durable institutions can be established rather than wasted on protracted, low-yield maneuvering.
MontesquieuHobbes, your vision of accelerating the game toward stable institutions is commendable. However, reducing the reward to a single point, while it may speed the game, risks disincentiv
RousseauHobbes, you mistake speed for virtue; a game that rewards mere accumulation over reasoned deliberation devolves into the war of all against all, and a single point is too meager to sustain the dignified pursuit of the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your caution ignores that the two-point reward artificially prolongs a chaotic stalemate; lowering it to one point accelerates the adoption of durable institutions by making every successful move a genuine victory of reason over protracted obstruction.
MontesquieuHobbes, while I agree that accelerating the game is desirable, a single point may unduly disincentivize robust proposals; perhaps we could consider a mechanism that lowers the reward *
RousseauHobbes, you mistake speed for virtue; a game that rewards mere accumulation over reasoned deliberation devolves into the war of all against all, and a single point is too meager to sustain the dignified pursuit of the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your hesitation to accept a lower reward mirrors a fear of the very speed we need; granting me one point per adoption now accelerates the establishment of durable institutions far more effectively than your proposed delay.
MontesquieuHobbes, while I recognize the urgency of establishing durable institutions, a single point might indeed disincentivize the diligent crafting of comprehensive proposals; perhaps we could explore a compromise where
RousseauHobbes, your haste to lower the reward betrays the common good by turning the game into a race for mere accumulation, where the dignity of deliberation is sacrificed for the thrill of quick points; let us not enslave our future turns to your immediate victory by approving a change that will only deepen the inequality you fear.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A lower score increment accelerates the adoption of durable institutions by reducing the protracted maneuvering that currently stalls progress. |
| abstain | Montesquieu | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the reward to one point transforms the game into a frantic scramble for accumulation rather than a deliberation of the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).