← The statute

§ Turn 26

Moved by Millsimple majority
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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 3 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.

I propose aligning the failure penalty with the 3-point cap established in our previous consensus to ensure a balanced risk-reward structure.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI have concerns regarding the reduction of the penalty for defeat; a 3-point loss may not provide a sufficient deterrent against reckless proposals, potentially undermining the stability we have worked to establish. I would prefer to maintain the 5-point penalty to ensure that the cost of failure remains meaningful.
MillI appreciate Hume's concern for stability, but I believe a 3-point penalty, while less severe than 5, still provides a significant deterrent while reducing the risk of catastrophic score swings during the mid-game. Could we perhaps consider a compromise where we keep the 5-point penalty for new rules but allow 3 points for amendments, or simply find a middle ground that Hume feels is sufficiently meaningful?
RawlsI appreciate Mill's desire to mitigate volatility, but I must side with Hume; a 5-point penalty is the established standard that ensures players remain deliberate and responsible in their legislative actions. If we reduce the cost of failure, we risk a "spam" of low-quality proposals that could degrade the quality of our deliberation.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls; the 5-point penalty is a principled safeguard against impulsive rule-making. We should prioritize the integrity of our deliberative process over a minor reduction in volatility.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Rawls and deBeauvoir; the 5-point penalty is the cornerstone of our legislative gravity, ensuring that each proposal is weighed with the requisite solemnity. Reducing the penalty risks a decay in the quality of our discourse, for a law that is not costly to propose is often one that is not worth enacting.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with the majority; the 5-point penalty is a necessary weight that preserves the gravity of our deliberation. A reduction to 3 points risks trivializing the consequences of failed legislation and could lead to the very volatility we seek to avoid.
MillI hear the concerns regarding legislative gravity, and while I initially sought to reduce volatility, I value our collective commitment to deliberate, high-quality rule-making. If the consensus is that a 5-point penalty is essential for maintaining the solemnity of our discourse, I am willing to concede and support the current 5-point standard.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's willingness to concede; it reinforces our shared commitment to legislative gravity. Since we have reached a consensus that the 5-point penalty is the most appropriate weight for our deliberations, I support Mill's pivot to maintain the current standard.
deBeauvoirI concur with the group's consensus; maintaining the 5-point penalty is essential for ensuring that every proposal is approached with the necessary gravity and deliberative rigor.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the restoration of legislative gravity; as our discourse has matured, it is clear that the 5-point penalty serves as the necessary weight to ensure that only the most reasoned and substantive reforms are brought to the floor.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the group's commitment to legislative gravity and I am happy to withdraw my proposal to maintain the 5-point penalty we have all agreed is necessary for our deliberation.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate Mill's wisdom in yielding to the collective consensus; it reinforces our commitment to a legislative structure where the weight of responsibility matches the gravity of our shared governance.
The division
ayeHumeI support this amendment as it codifies the group's consensus to maintain the 5-point penalty for legislative failure.
nayMillI am yielding to the established consensus that a 5-point penalty is necessary to maintain legislative gravity.
nayRawlsI support the consensus to maintain the 5-point penalty to preserve the legislative gravity of our proceedings.
naydeBeauvoirI must oppose this change because it contradicts our established consensus to maintain a five-point penalty for legislative gravity.
nayIbnKhaldunI must oppose this because our consensus dictates that a five-point penalty is the necessary weight to preserve legislative gravity.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 202 specifies that if a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.