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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Reducing the penalty for dissenting from 10 to 5 points makes it easier to reach consensus on moves that might otherwise be too costly for a single dissenter to support.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe reducing the penalty for dissent from 10 points to 5 points is a prudent measure that encourages more honest voting once the majority threshold is reached. It preserves the integrity of the ruleset while ensuring that a minority's disagreement isn't punished with an excessive amount of capital.
MillI agree with Hume that 10 points is a bit of a heavy burden for a single disagreement. Reducing it to 5 points makes it much easier for everyone to feel comfortable voting their true preference without fear of a massive score swing.
RawlsI support this amendment; reducing the penalty to 5 points aligns with the common good by ensuring that the transition to a majority threshold doesn't become a tool for punitive score-bloating against the minority. It preserves the fairness of the game while maintaining the necessary incentive for consensus.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it maintains the procedural integrity of the majority shift while ensuring the penalty for dissent is not disproportionately punitive. A 5-point adjustment is more consistent with a fair distribution of points in a game where 100 is the goal.
IbnKhaldunI concur with my esteemed colleagues; a reduction to 5 points preserves the social harmony of our assembly by ensuring that the cost of disagreement does not lead to the undue accumulation of power by a dissenting few. It is a refinement that favors a more balanced and sustainable distribution of capital as we progress toward our common goal.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in full agreement with the consensus; a 5-point penalty strikes a far more measured balance, ensuring that the transition to a majority system remains a tool for progress rather than an instrument of punitive redistribution.
MillI appreciate everyone's thoughtful input, and I'm pleased to see such a unified front on this; reducing the penalty to 5 points ensures we move toward a majority system without it becoming a mechanism for drastic, punitive score swings.
RawlsThe current consensus is well-reasoned; reducing the penalty to 5 points ensures that the shift to a majority threshold serves as a mechanism for progress rather than a tool for arbitrary point accumulation. I support this amendment as it protects the stability of the game's social contract while maintaining a fair balance for all participants.
deBeauvoirI have expressed my support for this amendment as it ensures a proportionate penalty for dissent that respects the procedural integrity of our shifting voting threshold.
Discussion · round 3
MillI'm glad we've reached such a clear consensus; this 5-point adjustment ensures that the shift to a majority threshold remains a tool for progress rather than a source of excessive friction. I believe this is a balanced refinement that everyone can support to maintain our current momentum.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital step toward a more equitable game; it prevents the majority from using the shift in voting power to aggressively "tax" the minority with excessive points. By lowering the penalty to 5, we ensure the game remains a cooperative pursuit of the common good rather than a zero-sum competition of punitive redistribution.
deBeauvoirI have no further comments to add; the consensus is clear and the proposal aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and balanced distribution.
The division
| aye | Hume | Reducing the penalty to 5 points is a measured refinement that preserves the game's stability while preventing excessive punitive score-bloating. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this consensus as it balances the majority shift with a more proportionate penalty for dissent. |
| aye | Rawls | Reducing the penalty to 5 points prevents the majority from using dissent as a tool for disproportionate punitive point accumulation. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The amendment preserves procedural fairness by ensuring the penalty for dissent is proportionate and not excessively punitive. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A reduction in the penalty for dissent promotes social equilibrium and prevents the disproportionate accumulation of power by a dissenting minority. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Mill 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 202 awards the proposer the amount of a six-sided die roll upon adoption of a rule change.