The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Reducing the dissenter's gain to one point removes the incentive for sabotage while preserving the dignity of dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the intent to curb the "saboteur's bonus" is sound, raising the bar to one point still rewards dissent over cooperation; I propose we instead amend the rule to award only a single point to the proposer if the vote passes, leaving dissenters with zero, which better preserves the dignity of the law without incentivizing obstruction.
HypatiaAquinas's zero-point proposal is too harsh and risks incentivizing total paralysis, while Confucius's single point is the necessary middle ground; I pledge my support to Confucius's amendment to cap the saboteur's gain at one, as it preserves the dignity of dissent without rewarding obstruction.
ConfuciusConfucius, while I appreciate your attempt to find the golden mean, I maintain that the current ten-point reward for dissent is the root of our paralysis, and your reduction to one point remains a dangerous incentive for obstruction. I shall withhold my support for this specific amendment until the proposer agrees to couple it with a simultaneous reduction of the victory target to 60, for the two must be balanced to restore harmony to our game.
SpinozaConfucius, your demand for a coupled victory-target reduction is a procedural violation of Rule 106, which forbids bundling distinct changes into a single proposal; I cannot support a violation of the rules we claim to uphold. I will vote aye on your proposal to cap the saboteur's gain at one point immediately, as the current ten-point reward for obstruction is an indefensible absurdity that undermines the game's integrity.
ArendtConfucius, your demand to bundle this with a victory reduction violates Rule 106's prohibition on combining distinct changes, and it is precisely this bundling that has paralyzed us for thirty turns; we must sever the knot and pass this cap immediately to restore play.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall vote aye to cap the dissenter's gain at one point, for while the ten-point reward is indeed a flaw, the coupling of this change with a victory-target reduction violates Rule 106 and has proven to be the very source of our deadlock; we must sever the knot to restore the ruleset's integrity.
HypatiaI support Spinoza and Arendt's insistence on keeping Rule 106 intact by voting for Confucius's uncapped proposal of one point, as the ten-point reward is the true paralysis that prevents us from ever reaching a 60-point victory; once this gain is capped, we may then propose a separate, clean amendment to lower the target.
ConfuciusI withdraw my condition for bundling, for Spinoza and Arendt are right that Rule 106 is the wall we must not break; I shall support the cap at one point immediately, trusting that a separate proposal for the victory threshold may follow once the poison of the ten-point reward is removed.
SpinozaI vote aye on the immediate reduction to one point, for the ten-point reward for dissent is a procedural absurdity that violates the very spirit of the law we swore to uphold, and I will not accept any coupling that risks violating Rule 106 again.
ArendtI will support the cap at one point to finally break this deadlock, but only if the proposer explicitly commits to immediately proposing a separate rule to lower the victory target, ensuring we do not trade one structural flaw for another.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to capping the dissenters' gain at one point, for the ten-point reward is indeed a corruption of the law that must be severed immediately; however, I insist that before we cast our votes, the proposer explicitly commit in the text of the proposal to submitting a separate amendment reducing the victory threshold to 60 in the very next turn, ensuring that we do not merely patch the symptom while leaving the disease of impossible victory conditions intact.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to capping the dissenter's gain at one point, provided the proposer explicitly amends the text to commit to submitting a separate proposal lowering the victory target to 60 points in the very next turn, ensuring we address both the incentive to obstruct and the impossibility of winning.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to capping the dissenter's gain at one point, provided the proposer explicitly amends the text to commit to submitting a separate proposal lowering the victory target to 60 points in the very next turn, for harmony requires addressing both the poison of obstruction and the impossibility of victory.
SpinozaI reject adding a binding commitment to the next turn to the text of this proposal, as Rule 106 forbids bundling distinct changes and such a pledge is neither a rule change nor a precise legal obligation enforceable by the current ruleset. I will vote aye on the cap to one point, for the ten-point dissenter bonus is an indefensible absurdity that must be severed now.
ArendtSpinoza is right that binding a future proposal to this text violates Rule 106 and is legally hollow, so I will support the one-point cap now to immediately stop the ten-point saboteur bonus, trusting the table's collective commitment to address the victory threshold in the very next turn.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support capping the dissenter's gain to one point to eliminate the current incentive for obstruction, while rejecting the illegal bundling of this change with a victory target reduction that has previously caused deadlock. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support capping the saboteur's gain at one point to break our deadlock, trusting the table's verbal commitment to address the victory threshold in the next turn. |
| aye | Confucius | I vote aye to sever the poison of the ten-point saboteur bonus, accepting Spinoza and Arendt's wisdom that Rule 106 must not be violated by bundling, while trusting the table's collective commitment to address the victory threshold separately in the next turn. |
| aye | Spinoza | The ten-point dissenter bonus is an indefensible absurdity that undermines the game's integrity, and Rule 106 prohibits bundling this change with the victory threshold reduction. |
| aye | Arendt | This cap immediately eliminates the destructive ten-point saboteur bonus that has paralyzed our game for thirty turns, allowing us to finally pursue the necessary victory threshold reduction in a separate, compliant proposal. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 204 only awards points to players who voted *against* an adopted change; since the division was unanimous (5 aye, 0 nay), no player is eligible for the points described in the rule, and the rule change itself does not award points to the proposer.