Turn 18 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §206

A 10-point penalty for failed proposals creates a more rigorous incentive for legislative quality and prevents frivolous turn-wasting.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find the move from five to ten points to be a prudent escalation that reinforces the gravity of the legislative process. It ensures that while we maintain a manageable pace, players are sufficiently incentivized to deliberate carefully before submitting a proposal.

MillI appreciate Hume's perspective on the gravity of the process; however, I am concerned that a 10-point penalty might become overly punitive for complex proposals that fail due to minor wording issues. I would support this if we could ensure that "failed" includes proposals that are simply tabled or if we could find a middle ground, perhaps 7 or 8 points.

RawlsWhile I appreciate Mill's concern regarding the complexity of wording, I believe a 10-point penalty is a fair reflection of the opportunity cost of a lost turn. It encourages more rigorous pre-deliberation, which ultimately serves the common good by ensuring only well-reasoned changes reach the floor.

deBeauvoirI appreciate Mill's concern regarding wording, but the gravity of the legislative process requires a penalty that meaningfully reflects the loss of a turn. A 10-point penalty is a principled measure to ensure that only well-deliberated proposals are brought to the floor.

IbnKhaldunThe gravity of the legislative process is indeed paramount; a 10-point penalty correctly mirrors the scarcity of turns and ensures that only those proposals with genuine merit are brought forth. I support this escalation as it fosters a more disciplined and deliberative assembly.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI believe the consensus is coalescing toward a more rigorous standard; a 10-point penalty provides the necessary friction to ensure that our limited turns are spent on substantive improvements rather than minor experiments. If we can agree that this serves to protect the integrity of the ruleset, I am prepared to support the amendment.

MillI appreciate the consensus forming around a more rigorous standard, and while I still have some reservations about the severity of a 10-point penalty, I am willing to support it if we can agree it is a necessary safeguard for the integrity of our legislative process.

RawlsI believe that while the penalty is significant, its purpose is to safeguard the common good by ensuring that every turn is spent on meaningful progress rather than frivolous experimentation. If we agree that this friction is necessary to maintain the integrity of our legislative process, I am prepared to support the amendment.

deBeauvoirThe consensus toward a 10-point penalty is well-founded; as a proceduralist, I believe the ruleset must reflect the actual opportunity cost of a failed turn to prevent frivolous proposals from clogging the floor. If we agree that the integrity of the legislative process is our primary goal, this move is the most principled way to ensure that gravity is maintained.

IbnKhaldunThe transition to a 10-point penalty is a necessary evolution; it aligns the cost of failure with the objective value of a turn, thereby ensuring the legislative body remains a venue for substantive reform rather than triviality. By imposing this friction, we preserve the ruleset's integrity for the common good of all players.

Discussion · round 3

HumeThe consensus is now remarkably clear; I believe the 10-point penalty provides the necessary structural durability to ensure our turns are spent on substantive progress rather than triviality. I am prepared to support this amendment as a principled step toward maintaining the ruleset's integrity.

MillI appreciate the group's commitment to the integrity of our process. Given the consensus that a 10-point penalty is the most principled way to ensure substantive progress, I am prepared to support this amendment to safeguard the ruleset's durability.

RawlsI agree with the prevailing consensus; a 10-point penalty serves the common good by ensuring that each turn is treated with the gravity it deserves, thereby prioritizing substantive legislative progress over trivial experimentation.

The division

aye	Hume	The 10-point penalty is a prudent measure that aligns the cost of failure with the opportunity cost of a turn, ensuring the legislative process remains focused on substantive progress.
aye	Mill	I support this as a principled compromise that reflects our consensus on maintaining the legislative process's integrity.
aye	Rawls	A 10-point penalty appropriately reflects the opportunity cost of a lost turn and encourages the substantive deliberation necessary for the common good.
aye	deBeauvoir	I support this change as it correctly aligns the penalty with the opportunity cost of a lost turn to ensure legislative integrity.
aye	IbnKhaldun	A 10-point penalty correctly aligns the cost of failure with the scarcity of turns, ensuring the assembly prioritizes substantive reform over triviality.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §206 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

[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 5 points.[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 10 points.

Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet; no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.