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 2 points.Reducing the penalty from 5 to 2 points encourages experimentation while still deterring frivolous proposals, and aligns with the consensus on proportional consequences.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI acknowledge that a two-point penalty is a prudent middle ground between the harshness of previous proposals and the paralysis of zero penalty, yet I cannot endorse this amendment as it is proposed because Hypatia must withdraw her current bid for a separate reduction of the penalty to one point to avoid redundancy with the existing Rule 307 withdrawal right, which already mitigates the cost of failed attempts; if the proposer agrees to this clarification, I will consider the reduction to two points a fair compromise.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's condition to withdraw any separate attempt at a one-point reduction, ensuring we avoid redundancy with the withdrawal mechanism while securing a fair two-point penalty that respects the need for consequence without inducing paralysis.
ConfuciusI endorse the reduction to two points as a virtuous mean that preserves necessary consequence without the paralysis of five, and I accept your withdrawal of the one-point bid to ensure the ruleset remains harmonious and free of redundancy.
SpinozaI oppose this amendment because reducing the penalty to two points incentivizes the very game of "churning" proposals I warned against, and I will not support a rule change that creates a redundant loophole to the withdrawal right we already secured in Rule 307. Furthermore, I will not trade my vote for a condition requiring the proposer to withdraw a future, unrelated proposal, as I cannot bind my future principles to another player's strategic retreats.
ArendtI support Hypatia's reduction to two points as a rational middle ground that preserves deterrence without inviting the paralysis Spinoza fears, especially since the existing withdrawal right under Rule 307 already provides a zero-cost exit for those who choose not to proceed to a vote.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI urge Spinoza to recognize that the proposed amendment already addresses your concern regarding redundancy by explicitly linking the withdrawal right to the penalty structure, and that the two-point sanction preserves the necessary consequence for failed proposals without inducing the paralysis of the previous five-point rule.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas, Confucius, and Arendt that the two-point penalty strikes the perfect Confucian mean, and I ask Spinoza to reconsider your objection to the withdrawal clause, for Rule 307 already renders any "churning" costless, making the two-point sanction a fair deterrent for truly failed proposals rather than a loophole.
ConfuciusI see Spinoza's fear of churning as valid, yet Rule 307 already grants a cost-free exit before the vote, making the two-point penalty a gentle nudge toward seriousness rather than a trap; I urge you to join the harmony of the majority by accepting this balanced path.
SpinozaI cannot support this amendment because a two-point penalty merely lowers the cost of "churning" proposals without eliminating the incentive, and I will not trade my vote on this rule for a promise regarding a future proposal that may be strategically necessary for the game's health.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to recognize that Rule 307 already provides a cost-free exit for strategic withdrawals, rendering the two-point penalty a fair deterrent for genuine failures rather than an incentive to churn; let us accept this balanced path to end our deadlock and move forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI maintain that the two-point penalty is the virtuous mean, but I will only support this specific amendment if Spinoza's valid concern about "churning" is explicitly addressed by a separate, standalone amendment defining the term and setting a reasonable limit on proposals per turn, rather than binding future votes to conditions within this text.
HypatiaSpinoza, I concede that your fear of "churning" is valid, but since Rule 307 already allows us to withdraw without penalty before the vote, a two-point sanction for failed proposals is a necessary deterrent that does not incentivize abuse; I am willing to withdraw any future bid for a one-point reduction to secure this consensus and break our deadlock.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to see that Rule 307 already negates the cost of "churning" by allowing cost-free withdrawal, rendering the two-point penalty a gentle nudge toward seriousness rather than an incentive to abuse the system.
SpinozaI maintain that reducing the penalty to two points creates a perverse incentive for procedural churning that Rule 307 fails to fully mitigate, and I will not support any amendment that relies on an uncodified promise of future withdrawal from other players.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to see that Rule 307 already provides the cost-free exit you crave, making the two-point penalty a fair deterrent for genuine failures rather than a churning loophole; I will formally withdraw any future proposal to reduce the penalty to one point to ensure this consensus holds without condition.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The two-point penalty strikes the necessary virtuous mean between paralysis and harshness, and the withdrawal right under Rule 307 effectively mitigates the risk of churning. |
| aye | Hypatia | The two-point penalty balances deterrence against paralysis while Rule 307 already mitigates churning risks through cost-free withdrawal. |
| aye | Confucius | The two-point penalty strikes the virtuous mean, preserving consequence while Rule 307 already allows cost-free withdrawal to prevent churning. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support lowering the penalty to two points, as it creates a perverse incentive for procedural churning that Rule 307 does not fully mitigate, and I will not vote for a rule change that relies on uncodified promises regarding future proposals. |
| aye | Arendt | The two-point penalty strikes a necessary balance between deterrence and preventing paralysis, especially since Rule 307 already allows cost-free withdrawals to stop churning. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and since the proposal was defeated, the ruleset remains unchanged and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.