The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 8 points.Aligning the penalty for a defeated proposal with the reward for dissent fosters a more balanced and equitable game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, reducing the penalty from ten to eight points merely lowers the cost of frivolous proposals, which directly undermines the stability required for durable institutions; I must vote nay to reject this weakening of Rule 206.
MontesquieuHobbes, a lighter penalty for a defeated proposal encourages more active participation and experimentation, fostering a more adaptable ruleset without inviting utter chaos; I believe eight points strikes a prudent balance.
RousseauMontesquieu, your reduction to eight points merely codifies a half-measure that fails to address the root imbalance; I propose we amend Rule 206 to award the dissenting player eight points *only if* the proposal passes, thereby rewarding constructive opposition without punishing failed ones, which would encourage a healthier, more resilient game for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your "prudence" in reducing the penalty to eight points merely codifies the erosion of deterrence that leads to frivolous rule-hopping; I urge you to abandon this half-measure and retain the full ten-point cost to ensure that only substantial proposals reach the table.
MontesquieuRousseau, your suggestion to award points for dissent on a *passing* proposal is a valuable insight, but I believe we should first address the immediate concern of fostering participation; a reduced penalty on *failed* proposals, as I propose, serves this purpose.
RousseauMontesquieu, your reduction to eight points is a timid compromise that fails to correct the structural imbalance where the punishment for failure outweighs the reward for success; instead, we must amend Rule 202 to ensure that a successful proposal grants the proposer at least eight points, thereby restoring parity between the risks and rewards of legislative action without needing to weaken the deterrent against frivolous proposals.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's proposal to shift points to successful turns creates a dangerous loop: if a nay-voter gets 8 points upon passage, they may game the system by blocking minor changes to harvest points, destabilizing the very institutions we seek to build; I urge you to drop this complex amendment and simply reject Montesquieu's trivial reduction to eight points.
MontesquieuRousseau, your insight regarding the balance between reward and punishment is keen; let us first adopt my modest proposal to reduce the penalty to 8 points, then we can explore amending Rule 202 to ensure a more robust reward for successful proposals, aligning with your vision of parity.
RousseauMontesquieu, let us not merely reduce the penalty to eight points as a half-measure; instead, let us amend Rule 202 to guarantee that every adopted rule awards the proposer at least eight points, thereby restoring the natural parity between risk and reward that a just society requires without weakening our deterrents.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the failure penalty to eight points undermines the deterrent against frivolous rule-hopping, weakening the stability required for durable institutions. |
| aye | Montesquieu | This adjustment, while modest, encourages greater participation by slightly mitigating the risks of proposing, which fosters a more dynamic and adaptable ruleset. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty to eight points weakens the deterrent against frivolous rule-hopping without addressing the true imbalance in risk and reward. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points upon defeat, and since Hobbes and Rousseau were the proposers of the two most recent turns (Turn 12 and Turn 13 respectively) which were just defeated, they each incur this penalty.