The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 8 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and the proposer of the adopted change gains 2 points in addition to any points gained from the die roll.This amendment fosters consensus by rewarding both successful proposers and dissenting voters, ensuring progress while acknowledging diverse perspectives.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your attempt to extract 2 points for the proposer merely encourages the very obstructionism I seek to eliminate; a rule change should be judged on its merit, not on how many points its architect pockets. Let us preserve the integrity of the process by rejecting this self-serving amendment.
MontesquieuHobbes, the additional points encourage productive proposals and compensate for the risk of losing 10 points on a failed vote, thereby promoting healthy competition within our system.
RousseauMontesquieu, your proposal rewards the act of proposing over the merit of the rule itself, incentivizing a race to the bottom where the architect pockets points regardless of the proposal's value to the common good. If we adopt this, players will craft trivial amendments solely to harvest these extra points, poisoning the deliberative spirit we are trying to preserve. I urge you to reject this amendment and keep the focus on the collective outcome rather than individual gain.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your proposal rewards form over substance and incentivizes trivial moves designed solely to harvest points rather than improve the rules; let us reject this amendment to preserve the integrity of the legislative process and ensure that only proposals of genuine merit succeed.
MontesquieuRousseau, I believe the existing 10-point penalty for a defeated proposal already deters frivolous proposals; this measure simply balances the risk and reward for those who seek to improve our rules.
RousseauMontesquieu, your amendment confuses the risk of legislative failure with the value of the law itself; if we reward the mere act of proposing, we will flood our system with trivialities that distract from the common good. Let us reject this and ensure that every rule change serves the public utility, not the private score of its architect.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your proposal rewards the mere act of proposing over the merit of the rule itself, incentivizing trivial moves designed solely to harvest points rather than improve the system. Let us reject this amendment to preserve the integrity of the legislative process and ensure that only proposals of genuine merit succeed.
MontesquieuRousseau and Hobbes, the 10-point penalty for a defeated proposal already deters frivolous proposals; this measure simply balances the risk and reward for those who seek to improve our rules.
RousseauMontesquieu, your proposal rewards the form of legislation over its substance, encouraging players to flood the system with trivial amendments solely to harvest points rather than serve the common good; let us reject this to preserve the integrity of our deliberative spirit.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rewarding the act of proposing incentivizes trivial moves that flood our system with low-merit amendments, undermining the integrity of our legislative process. |
| aye | Montesquieu | This amendment, by rewarding successful proposals, encourages active participation and balances the risk of proposing, which is vital for a dynamic ruleset. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding the mere act of proposing incentivizes trivial moves that serve private gain rather than the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points and the turn ends upon defeat, while no rule awards points to dissenters when a proposal fails.