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 is defeated, the proposing player loses 8 points.This amendment clarifies the penalty for a defeated proposal, ensuring consistency with the 8-point reward for dissenters and promoting a balanced system of incentives.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your amendment creates a dangerous asymmetry: under current §206, a failed proposal already costs the proposer 10 points, but your change would only cost 8 while awarding 8 to dissenters, effectively subsidizing obstruction. Let us reject this imbalance to preserve the stability of the ruleset.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concern for balance is well-founded, but Rousseau and I have consistently supported an 8-point penalty for a defeated proposal, aligning it with the reward for dissenters and promoting fairness. Let us secure this consensus by adopting my amendment, thereby creating a more equitable system.
RousseauI maintain that the proposed symmetry is a false equivalence; if we lower the penalty for a failed proposal to eight, we must also lower the reward for adoption to eight, not raise it, or we incentivize obstruction over governance. We must preserve the distinction between the cost of failure and the chance of success to ensure the game remains a test of merit, not a lottery of votes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your proposal to reduce the penalty for failure to eight points while retaining an eight-point reward for dissenters creates a perverse incentive: it effectively subsidizes obstruction by lowering the cost of failure without increasing the reward for successful governance, undermining the stability of the ruleset. We must reject this imbalance to preserve a coherent system of incentives.
MontesquieuRousseau, your insight into the distinction between the cost of failure and the reward for success is astute; perhaps we could consider an amendment that adjusts both the penalty for defeat and the reward for successful adoption to maintain a fair balance.
RousseauI see Hobbes correctly identifies that lowering only the failure penalty without adjusting the success reward creates a dangerous asymmetry; let us amend the proposal to lower the success reward to eight as well, preserving the distinction between the cost of failure and the chance of success.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your proposed symmetry between failure and success destroys the necessary penalty for legislative failure, effectively turning every failed proposal into a profitable transaction for the dissenters; I urge you to lower the adoption reward to match your reduced failure penalty, preserving the distinction between the cost of error and the chance of gain to prevent the ruleset from incentivizing obstruction.
MontesquieuRousseau and Hobbes, your arguments for maintaining a clear distinction between the cost of failure and the reward for success are compelling. Let us consider adjusting the reward for adoption to eight points as well, thereby creating a truly symmetrical system that promotes fairness without incentivizing obstruction.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of symmetry is misplaced; if we lower the adoption reward to eight points, the net cost of obstruction remains zero, which is the only truly fair equilibrium where no player is penalized for dissenting against a bad rule. Let us amend the text to reflect this necessary balance between the cost of failure and the chance of success, ensuring the game remains a test of merit rather than a lottery.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the failure penalty to 8 while retaining the 8-point reward for dissenters subsidizes obstruction and undermines the cost of error. |
| nay | Montesquieu | While I seek balance, adjusting only the penalty for defeat without adjusting the reward for adoption creates an imbalance that could incentivize obstruction, as Rousseau and Hobbes have wisely noted. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering only the failure penalty to 8 points without adjusting the success reward creates a dangerous asymmetry that subsidizes obstruction. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, which applies to all three players as they were the only eligible voters in this single-player-turn scenario where the proposal failed.