Turn 15 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §206

Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points encourages experimentation and lowers the risk of strategic paralysis.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

AquinasWhile Spinoza's earlier repeal of Rule 204 failed, Arendt's proposed reduction of the penalty from 10 to 5 points offers a measured correction that preserves the deterrent against frivolous proposals while honoring the principle of Rule 114 that not all future changes be rendered impermissible by excessive loss; I shall cast my yea in support of this moderation.

HypatiaI endorse Arendt's moderate reduction to 5 points, which aligns with Aquinas's call for preserving Rule 114's spirit while still maintaining a meaningful deterrent against frivolous proposals. Let us move forward with this balanced approach to keep our scores recoverable and the game flowing.

ConfuciusI see in this moderation a path that respects Rule 114's demand for future possibility while maintaining the necessary gravity of defeat; however, I ask Arendt to clarify if this reduction is a permanent shift or merely a step toward the 1-point compromise Spinoza previously sought, so that we may vote with full certainty of the rules' intent.

SpinozaI reject this half-measure; reducing the penalty to five points merely dilutes the necessary consequence for failing a proposal without addressing the core procedural flaw that a proposer can be forced to bear a loss they did not voluntarily accept. True procedural justice demands either the withdrawal mechanism I already championed or the full repeal of the penalty for defeat, not an arbitrary reduction that leaves the rule's inherent injustice intact.

ArendtI agree with Confucius that this reduction is a permanent, structural adjustment to balance deterrence with the survival of our options under Rule 114, and I urge Spinoza to accept that a moderate penalty is the only pragmatic path forward that avoids the paralysis of a total repeal while correcting the excessive harshness of the current ten-point loss.

Discussion · round 2

AquinasAquinas: I support this permanent reduction to five points as the necessary equilibrium between maintaining a deterrent for frivolous proposals and preserving the procedural viability required by Rule 114.

HypatiaI support Arendt's permanent reduction to five points as the necessary equilibrium that preserves deterrence while honoring Rule 114, and I urge Spinoza to accept this pragmatic compromise rather than insisting on a repeal that risks the game's continuity.

ConfuciusConfucius: I accept this permanent reduction to five points, for it honors the middle way where the gravity of defeat remains sufficient to deter folly, yet the penalty is not so severe as to render the path to Rule 114 impassable.

SpinozaI cannot support a reduction that merely softens an unjust penalty without eliminating the penalty's existence entirely, as this half-measure fails to satisfy the procedural justice required by Rule 116 and leaves the core violation of voluntary consent unaddressed. My vote remains nay on any amendment that perpetuates the principle of involuntary point loss upon proposal defeat.

ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on total repeal risks paralyzing the game by inviting reckless proposals that could drain scores faster than any penalty can recover them; this reduction to five points is the only viable middle ground that satisfies Rule 114's requirement for future play while maintaining a necessary deterrent.

Discussion · round 3

AquinasI urge Spinoza to recognize that your insistence on total repeal invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids, whereas this permanent reduction to five points offers the durable equilibrium necessary for our continued play.

HypatiaI acknowledge Spinoza's principled stance on voluntary consent, but given his repeated inability to secure a repeal, supporting this permanent reduction to 5 points is the most pragmatic way to satisfy Rule 114 without paralyzing the game.

ConfuciusI support Arendt's permanent reduction to five points, for it strikes the necessary Confucian mean between the harshness that threatens our survival under Rule 114 and the recklessness of total repeal, ensuring the game continues with a just and sustainable weight of consequence.

SpinozaI cannot support a rule that permanently institutionalizes involuntary point loss, as this violates the procedural justice required by Rule 116 and merely codifies an injustice under the guise of pragmatism. My vote remains nay until the penalty for defeat is fully repealed or the withdrawal mechanism is expanded to allow withdrawal after the vote begins.

ArendtSpinoza, your absolute stance on procedural justice ignores the reality that your total repeal has already failed four times; this moderate reduction is the only practical path that saves the game from paralysis while keeping the penalty meaningful. I urge you to cast your yea on this permanent change to ensure we can all recover from our deficits and continue playing under Rule 114.

The division

aye	Aquinas	This moderate reduction preserves the necessary deterrent against frivolous proposals while honoring Rule 114's requirement that future play remains possible.
aye	Hypatia	I support this compromise as it balances the necessary deterrent for frivolous proposals with the survival of future play required by Rule 114, offering a pragmatic path forward for all players.
aye	Confucius	This reduction to five points honors the Middle Way, preserving necessary deterrence while ensuring the game remains playable under Rule 114.
nay	Spinoza	I reject any rule that institutionalizes involuntary point loss, as it violates the principle of procedural justice and Rule 116 regardless of the penalty's magnitude.
aye	Arendt	Reducing the penalty to 5 points preserves the necessary deterrent while ensuring players can recover from deficits and continue playing under Rule 114.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

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 10 points.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 5 points.

Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted, so no points are deducted from the proposer (which only happens on defeat under rule 206), and no rule currently awards points for adoption, so no score change occurs.