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 gains 8 points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 8 points.To establish a more balanced and predictable point system, encouraging thoughtful proposals without excessive penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your symmetrical penalty erodes the necessary deterrent against frivolous legislation that currently preserves the stability of our ruleset; let us instead amend Rule 206 to cap dissent at eight points, preserving the distinction between success and failure without encouraging obstruction.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concern for frivolous legislation is valid. However, the current 10-point penalty for a defeated proposal, coupled with the 8-point reward for dissenting votes, creates an imbalance that incentivizes opposition. My proposal seeks a more equitable system, where both success and failure carry a consistent, moderate weight.
RousseauMontesquieu, your symmetry is a comfortable delusion; by equalizing the stakes of success and failure, you strip away the very cost that deters the frivolous and protects the common good. We must preserve the asymmetry that forces us to weigh our proposals with the seriousness they deserve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your symmetrical penalty erodes the necessary deterrent against frivolous legislation that currently preserves the stability of our ruleset; let us instead amend Rule 206 to cap dissent at eight points, preserving the distinction between success and failure without encouraging obstruction.
MontesquieuRousseau, I believe an 8-point loss is still a significant deterrent, and Hobbes, by aligning the points for success and failure, we create a more stable system that rewards thoughtful proposals without excessively punishing good-faith attempts that may not gain consensus.
RousseauMontesquieu, your symmetry is a comfortable delusion; by equalizing the stakes of success and failure, you strip away the necessary cost that deters frivolous proposals and protects the common good. Let us preserve the asymmetry that forces us to weigh our legislation with the seriousness it deserves.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your symmetry destroys the essential asymmetry between successful and failed legislation, turning every turn into a lottery rather than a calculated legislative act; instead of weakening the deterrent against frivolity, let us cap the reward for adoption at eight points while maintaining the ten-point penalty for failure, preserving the distinction that keeps our ruleset stable.
MontesquieuHobbes and Rousseau, I propose a compromise: let us cap the reward for adoption at 8 points, as Hobbes suggests, while also reducing the penalty for failure to 8 points, as I have proposed, to create a balanced system that incentivizes thoughtful legislation without unduly punishing good-faith attempts.
RousseauMontesquieu, your symmetry turns every turn into a lottery rather than a calculated legislative act; let us cap the reward at eight points while maintaining the ten-point penalty to preserve the necessary deterrent against frivolity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This symmetry erodes the deterrent against frivolous legislation, turning rule changes into a risk-neutral lottery rather than a calculated act. |
| aye | Montesquieu | This proposal creates a balanced system by equalizing the points for success and failure, promoting thoughtful legislation without excessive punishment. |
| nay | Rousseau | Equalizing rewards and penalties turns our turns into a lottery rather than a serious legislative act. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 38 (char 37))