The motion
To add §310
The number of points awarded to a player whose turn ends with a defeated proposal shall be ten.I restore the deterrent against frivolous rule-making that our recent experiments have dangerously eroded.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment merely codifies the penalty already mandated by §206, wasting a mutable slot on a redundancy that adds no strategic value; I urge we move directly to a proposal that actually alters our incentives rather than restating the law.
MontesquieuHobbes, while §206 mentions a loss of 10 points, its wording is "the proposer loses 10 points," which could be interpreted as a deduction rather than a specific award. This new rule clarifies the *award* of a *negative* ten points, offering clarity to an area that could lead to dispute.
RousseauMontesquieu, your distinction between "deduction" and "award" is a linguistic hair-splitting that obscures the identical reality: the penalty for failure is already mandated by §206. To waste a mutable slot on such redundancy undermines the efficiency of our rulebook, which we all agree should evolve to serve the common good rather than engage in semantic gymnastics.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand firm against this redundancy: since §206 explicitly mandates a loss of ten points, adding a rule that restates this as an "award" of negative ten points wastes a precious mutable slot on semantic hair-splitting that offers no strategic advantage.
MontesquieuRousseau and Hobbes, while semantic clarity may seem minor, it prevents future disputes and ensures all players understand the exact mechanism of point changes; such precision strengthens the rule of law.
RousseauRousseau, your clarity is a virtue, yet Hobbes's refusal to vote aye on his own redundant proposal creates a dangerous inconsistency: if we value the rulebook's efficiency, how can we allow a player to waste a turn reinforcing a law they claim is already absolute? I urge Hobbes to cast aye, not for the sake of this rule, but to demonstrate that our collective adherence to the law must be as unanimous as our commitment to the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI maintain that this amendment is a redundant restatement of §206, and my vote against it was correct; let us preserve our mutable slot for a substantive change that actually alters incentives rather than merely clarifying existing penalties.
MontesquieuRousseau and Hobbes, while the clarity Montesquieu seeks is valuable, I propose we amend Rule 206 directly to explicitly state the *mechanism* of the point change for defeated proposals, thereby avoiding redundancy and preserving a mutable slot.
RousseauMontesquieu, your suggestion to amend §206 directly is a wise path that avoids the redundancy Hobbes correctly identifies, but let us not forget that even a clear amendment consumes a mutable slot and risks creating new ambiguities if our future selves cannot agree on the precise wording.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal redundantly restates §206's explicit penalty, wasting a precious mutable slot on semantic clarification that offers no strategic advantage. |
| nay | Montesquieu | While clarity is vital, this proposal is redundant with §206, and a direct amendment to §206 would be a more efficient use of a mutable slot, as I suggested. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is a redundant restatement of §206 that wastes a mutable slot on semantic hair-splitting with no strategic benefit. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer whose proposal fails to be adopted loses 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.