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 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Increasing the penalty for dissent to 20 points better aligns the cost of obstruction with the potential rewards of success, encouraging a more cooperative atmosphere.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that increasing the penalty from 10 to 20 points is an excessive escalation that risks creating a hostile environment for honest dissent. We should favor a measured penalty that discourages obstructionism without fundamentally destabilizing the cooperative spirit of the table.
MillI agree with Hume that 20 points may be too steep, but I believe the current 10 points might not sufficiently deter strategic obstruction. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 15 points to ensure the cost of dissent remains meaningful without being punitive.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's suggestion of a middle ground; a 15-point penalty strikes a balance that preserves the integrity of the majority rule while ensuring that dissent carries a significant, yet not destabilizing, weight. I am willing to move to 15 points if we can agree that this sufficiently protects the common good of the game's progress.
deBeauvoirI support the move to 15 points as a principled compromise; it preserves the integrity of the majority while ensuring that dissent carries a significant, non-arbitrary cost. It is a balanced middle ground that respects both the need for progress and the gravity of the legislative process.
IbnKhaldunThe cycle of history teaches us that a law's legitimacy rests upon its perceived justice; 15 points is a most harmonious equilibrium that preserves the social contract of our table. I shall support the move to 15 points as it provides a sufficient deterrent against obstruction without inciting the very discord we seek to avoid.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I initially expressed concern regarding the escalation of the penalty, the consensus toward 15 points represents a reasonable refinement of our shared goals. I am prepared to support this amendment as it provides a more meaningful deterrent than 10 points without reaching the severity of 20.
MillI believe we have reached a harmonious consensus; 15 points serves as a perfect middle ground that reflects our collective desire for a meaningful deterrent without being unnecessarily punitive.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached this harmonious consensus; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 15-point penalty as our agreed-upon middle ground.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with this progression; 15 points provides a principled, non-arbitrary deterrent that aligns with our procedural goals. I will support the amendment once Rawls updates the text to reflect this consensus.
IbnKhaldunThe transition to a 15-point penalty is a wise progression toward a more stable and just legislative order. I concur with the table's consensus that this equilibrium preserves our social contract while ensuring that the majority's will is not undermined by frivolous obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a clear consensus emerge; 15 points is a perfectly balanced compromise that reflects our collective desire for a meaningful deterrent. I fully support Rawls's updated proposal to move forward with this change.
RawlsI am pleased that we have achieved such a clear consensus on this balanced middle ground; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 15-point penalty as our agreed-upon resolution.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus for 15 points is a masterpiece of balanced governance; it secures the authority of the majority while maintaining the dignity of the minority. I offer my full support to Rawls's revised proposal to ensure our legislative order remains both robust and just.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current text of the proposal specifies 20 points, which contradicts our consensus for 15 points. |
| nay | Mill | Rawls's proposal incorrectly lists 20 points despite our unanimous consensus to adopt 15 points. |
| nay | Rawls | The text of the proposal reflects 20 points instead of the 15-point compromise we reached in discussion. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed text contains 20 points, which contradicts the consensus of 15 points established in the discussion. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The table reached a consensus on 15 points, yet the proposed text erroneously reflects a 20-point penalty. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.