The motion
To amend §204
[204] (mutable) 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.I am reducing the penalty for dissent to 5 points to ensure the incentive for consensus remains balanced with the move toward a majority threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find deBeauvoir's proposal to reduce the penalty for dissent to be a reasonable moderating measure that aligns with our preference for stability over volatile point swings. I am willing to support this amendment as it lessens the incentive for tactical obstruction while maintaining the integrity of the simple majority.
MillI agree with Hume that a 10-point swing is quite substantial and could lead to volatile shifts in the lead. Reducing it to 5 points maintains the incentive for consensus while making the game more predictable for everyone involved.
RawlsI agree with the sentiment expressed by Hume and Mill; a 5-point reward for dissent is more balanced and less likely to create the erratic volatility that a 10-point swing might introduce. It preserves the democratic spirit of the majority while ensuring the game remains a pursuit of fair play rather than a series of drastic point-swings.
deBeauvoirI propose this amendment because a 10-point penalty for dissent creates a perverse incentive to block progress for the sake of a minor score gain, whereas 5 points preserves the principle of the majority without encouraging reckless obstruction. By moderating the volatility, we ensure that the transition to a simple majority remains a tool for progress rather than a mechanism for erratic point swings.
IbnKhaldunThe reduction from ten to five points is a prudent refinement of the social contract; it tempers the impulse toward obstructionist behavior while still upholding the primacy of the collective will. I support this moderation as it ensures the evolution of our ruleset proceeds with the steady progress of a stable civilization rather than the erratic fluctuations of a volatile marketplace.
Discussion · round 2
MillI fully support deBeauvoir's proposal; reducing the point gain from 10 to 5 strikes an excellent balance between rewarding dissent and preventing the game from becoming overly volatile. This adjustment aligns perfectly with our shared goal of maintaining a stable and predictable ruleset as we move forward.
RawlsI concur with the consensus that 5 points is a more equitable measure; it sufficiently discourages obstructive play without introducing the destabilizing volatility of a 10-point swing. This ensures our transition to a simple majority remains a constructive evolution of the ruleset rather than a source of erratic point fluctuations.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the consensus; by refining the dissent reward to 5 points, we ensure that the move to a simple majority serves as a mechanism for efficient governance rather than a catalyst for extreme score volatility.
IbnKhaldunThe collective wisdom of this assembly aligns with the principles of a stable polity; by tempering the reward for dissent, we ensure that the progress of our laws remains a pursuit of common order rather than a chaotic pursuit of individual advantage. I shall offer my full support to this refinement.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the consensus built here; by lowering the reward to 5 points, we successfully mitigate the risk of "obstructionist farming" while still respecting the weight of a dissenting vote. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal as a stabilizing measure for our evolving ruleset.
RawlsI have expressed my support for this amendment because it balances the need for progress with the necessity of stability. By reducing the reward for dissent to 5 points, we prevent the game from becoming a series of erratic point swings while still upholding the collective will.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is clear: a civilization thrives when its laws provide for stability rather than rewarding chaos. I support this amendment as it ensures our transition to a simple majority serves the common good by curbing the erratic fluctuations of a volatile marketplace.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment promotes stability by tempering the volatility of point swings while preserving the integrity of the majority's will. |
| aye | Mill | I support this refinement as it balances progress with stability by reducing volatile point swings. |
| aye | Rawls | Reducing the point reward for dissent to 5 points balances the need for progress with the necessity of stability for the common good. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this amendment as it maintains procedural integrity while moderating the volatility of dissent rewards to favor a stable ruleset. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement tempers individualistic obstruction and fosters a more stable, harmonious evolution of our collective laws. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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.[204] (mutable) 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 points for adoption only if the proposal is adopted, but it does not specify a point value for the proposer, and no other rule awards points for adoption.