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 5 points.Reducing the penalty for failed proposals encourages more experimentation and prevents players from being marginalized by a single unsuccessful move.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for a more lenient penalty, reducing the cost of failure to 5 points risks trivializing the stakes of our deliberations and may lead to reckless, low-quality proposals. I would prefer to maintain the current 10-point penalty to ensure that every turn remains a significant commitment to the ruleset's integrity.
MillI understand Hume's concern about the stakes, but given our current scores, a 10-point penalty is quite punitive for a single failed turn. I'm open to a middle ground, perhaps 7 points, to balance the need for meaningful consequences with a slightly more forgiving environment for experimentation.
RawlsI believe a 5-point penalty strikes the right balance between encouraging bold, creative rule-making and maintaining a sense of accountability. A 10-point penalty can be disproportionately devastating in the early game, potentially stifling the very innovation that makes Nomic vibrant.
deBeauvoirWhile I acknowledge the current scores are low, we must ensure that the penalty for a failed proposal remains significant enough to demand rigorous drafting. I would support a reduction, but only if it does not undermine the principle that a failed turn should be a meaningful consequence; perhaps 7 points is a more principled compromise than 5.
IbnKhaldunThe history of civilizations teaches us that excessive punishment breeds resentment while moderate discipline fosters progress. A 5-point penalty allows for the necessary experimentation of new institutions without removing the gravity of the deliberative process.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the 5-point penalty to be a significant erosion of the deliberative gravity I value; however, if deBeauvoir and Mill are willing to settle on 7, I would consider that a more measured compromise that preserves the gravity of the ruleset while acknowledging the current score landscape.
MillI appreciate the pivot toward a more balanced approach; I believe 7 points is a fair compromise that satisfies deBeauvoir's request for principled consequence and Hume's desire for gravity. I will support the proposal if it is adjusted to 7 points, as it allows for the creative experimentation we all seek without making failure trivial.
RawlsI am willing to move from 5 to 7 points to secure the consensus we are seeking; this preserves the gravity of the process while ensuring that the cost of experimentation remains manageable for all players.
deBeauvoirI support the adjustment to 7 points; it provides a principled middle ground that acknowledges the current score landscape without trivializing the gravity of a failed proposal.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the move to 7 points; it mirrors the social contract of a maturing civilization, providing sufficient friction to discourage recklessness while ensuring that the pursuit of progress is not paralyzed by the fear of ruin.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the consensus on 7 points is a prudent resolution; it maintains the gravity of our deliberations while acknowledging the practicalities of our current scores. I will support the proposal if Rawls adjusts the text to reflect this agreed-upon figure.
MillI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; I will support the proposal once Rawls updates the text to the agreed 7 points.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached this consensus; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 7-point penalty we all agreed upon to balance the gravity of the game with the need for innovation.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus on 7 points; it maintains the procedural gravity I require while acknowledging the current score landscape. I will vote aye as soon as Rawls updates the text.
IbnKhaldunI support the shift to 7 points; it establishes a sustainable equilibrium where the cost of failure is felt but does not lead to the systemic collapse of a player's influence.
The division
| nay | Hume | The text of the proposal remains at 5 points despite our explicit consensus on 7 points. |
| nay | Mill | The proposal still lists a 5-point penalty despite our consensus to move to 7 points. |
| nay | Rawls | The text still reflects a 5-point penalty despite our unanimous agreement to move to 7 points. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal fails to reflect the agreed-upon 7-point penalty, violating the consensus of the table. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The text does not reflect the consensus of 7 points we all agreed upon. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.