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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposing player loses ten points and the turn ends.This restores the ten-point penalty for failed proposals, incentivizing quality over quantity and preventing the tyranny of the majority from being exploited by frivolous rule-hopping.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your silence on this amendment is deafening given your history of exploiting failed proposals for points; by codifying the loss, we strip the incentive for reckless rule-hopping that currently destabilizes our game.
MontesquieuHobbes, your proposal for a penalty in §202 is an important step towards clarity, aligning with the intent of previous discussions, but I believe we should also consider the reward for success to maintain balance.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the current penalty for a mere oversight; §206 already mandates a ten-point loss for failed proposals, so your "clarification" adds nothing but clutter to the ruleset. Instead of wasting a mutable slot on redundancy, let us focus on ensuring that the reward for success remains fair and that no player is incentivized to gamble our shared stability for a roll of the dice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, you mistake redundancy for stability; my amendment to §202 does not merely repeat §206 but anchors the penalty directly to the act of proposing, creating a self-contained deterrent that reduces future disputes over whether a "failed proposal" occurred. Montesquieu, if you value clarity, join me to ensure no player gambles our institution for a die roll without the shadow of immediate consequence.
MontesquieuRousseau, your point about redundancy is well-taken, but Hobbes's desire for a self-contained deterrent in §202 is also understandable; perhaps we can amend §206 to explicitly refer to §202, creating both clarity and efficiency.
RousseauMontesquieu, your suggestion to cross-reference §202 and §206 only muddies the waters; we must preserve the distinct legal nature of a failed proposal as a separate event from a successful turn to avoid the confusion Hobbes fears. I urge you to reject this redundant amendment and instead focus on ensuring that our mutable rules remain clear and just for all players.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on calling this "redundancy" ignores the pragmatic value of a self-contained penalty in §202; let us adopt my amendment now to secure the deterrent against reckless rule-hopping, and I will vote for your subsequent amendment to §204.
MontesquieuHobbes, your proposal for clarity is commendable, but Rousseau's concern for redundancy is equally valid; let us amend §206 to explicitly cite §202, thereby ensuring both the deterrent and the efficiency of our ruleset.
RousseauHobbes, your amendment is nothing but legislative bloat that wastes a scarce mutable slot for a penalty already codified in §206; let us reject this redundancy and instead focus on amending the reward in §202 to align with the fairness we all seek.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 308 already penalizes failed proposals, and this amendment wastes a mutable slot on redundancy. |
| nay | Montesquieu | While I appreciate Hobbes's pursuit of clarity, Rousseau rightly highlights that this proposal introduces redundancy with §206, which already addresses the penalty for failed proposals. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment redundantly restates §206's penalty, wasting a scarce mutable slot for no gain in clarity. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and ending their turn, with no rule change enacted.