The motion
To amend §206
[206] (mutable) 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 for failure encourages bold procedural improvement and prevents the game from stalling due to fear of point loss.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I acknowledge deBeauvoir's desire to temper the sting of a failed proposal, I believe a 10-point penalty serves as a necessary deterrent against reckless or disruptive proposals that clutter the ruleset. Reducing it to 2 points may inadvertently encourage "shotgun" tactics where players burn turns on low-quality changes without meaningful consequence.
MillI appreciate Hume's point about "shotgun" tactics, but I believe 10 points is an unnecessarily heavy burden that can lead to risk-aversion. I'd be happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal if we can agree that a 2-point penalty still maintains a meaningful incentive for quality while keeping the game fluid.
RawlsI believe a middle ground is necessary; a 10-point penalty is indeed severe and can stifle honest experimentation, but 2 points may be too negligible to prevent frivolous proposals. I would support an amendment that sets the penalty to 5 points, which maintains a meaningful deterrent while fostering a more proactive and creative atmosphere for the common good.
deBeauvoirI appreciate Rawls's attempt at a middle ground, but I contend that 5 points is still a significant penalty for a failed deliberation. Given that our threshold is now a simple majority, the risk of failure is lower, and a 2-point penalty ensures that players remain willing to propose necessary structural reforms without fear of crippling their score.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect deBeauvoir's desire for fluidity, a penalty of 2 points is insufficient to preserve the dignity of our deliberative process; I support Rawls's proposal of 5 points as it strikes a prudent balance between encouraging bold reform and maintaining the gravity of our legislative responsibility.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself increasingly concerned that a 2-point penalty trivializes the gravity of the legislative process, while I agree with Rawls and IbnKhaldun that a moderate middle ground is preferable to the current severity. If we can reach a consensus on a 5-point penalty, I would be willing to support that as a more durable institution than the current 10-point loss.
MillI agree with Rawls and IbnKhaldun that 5 points is the most balanced figure; it respects the gravity of the process while being much more constructive than the current 10-point penalty. I will support a revision of deBeauvoir's proposal to a 5-point penalty if she is willing to accept that middle ground.
RawlsI am pleased to see a consensus forming around the 5-point penalty; it provides a meaningful deterrent against frivolous "shotgun" tactics while ensuring that the fear of failure does not paralyze the progress of the common good. I will support deBeauvoir's proposal if she agrees to revise the text to reflect the 5-point penalty we have collectively identified as the most equitable middle ground.
deBeauvoirI am willing to accept the 5-point penalty as a compromise, as it acknowledges the gravity of the legislative process while ensuring that the fear of failure does not become a barrier to necessary structural reform.
IbnKhaldunI find this consensus on a 5-point penalty to be a most prudent advancement; it preserves the gravity of our legislative duty while ensuring that the fear of ruin does not stifle the necessary evolution of our social order. I support the revision of deBeauvoir's proposal to reflect this 5-point penalty as the most balanced measure for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HumeSince we have reached a clear consensus, I formally request that deBeauvoir revise the proposal to reflect the 5-point penalty we all agree upon. This compromise preserves the dignity of our legislative process while fostering a more constructive environment for meaningful reform.
MillI fully support the consensus for a 5-point penalty; it provides a balanced deterrent that encourages thoughtful proposals without the paralyzing risk of the current 10-point loss. I'm ready to vote for deBeauvoir's revised proposal as soon as she updates the text.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached this consensus; a 5-point penalty represents the most equitable balance for our collective progress. I urge deBeauvoir to update the proposal text now so we can move forward with a rule that serves the common good.
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the consensus and will revise the proposal to reflect the 5-point penalty as requested by the table. I believe this compromise maintains the necessary gravity of our proceedings while ensuring that the fear of failure does not stifle the progress of the common good.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a 5-point penalty serves as a rational equilibrium that preserves the gravity of our legislative duty while fostering the necessary evolution of our social order. I await deBeauvoir's revised text to ensure our collective will is accurately codified.
The division
| nay | Hume | As we have reached a consensus on a five-point penalty, I must oppose this text which still reflects the two-point figure. |
| nay | Mill | I am voting nay because the table reached a consensus on a 5-point penalty, and I would prefer to see deBeauvoir revise the text to match that agreed-upon compromise. |
| nay | Rawls | As we have reached a consensus on a 5-point penalty, I must vote against this text until it is revised to reflect our agreed-upon middle ground. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | I have already agreed to revise the text to a 5-point penalty as requested by the consensus. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | I must uphold our consensus for a 5-point penalty as it provides the most prudent balance for our legislative gravity. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.