The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus 5 points if the proposal was unanimously adopted.Increase reward for successful, unanimous rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: This proposed amendment creates a significant imbalance between unanimous adoption and simple majority, which undermines the game's fairness. I urge caution before enacting this change.</response>
ParmenidesI appreciate your caution, Heraclitus, but I believe the additional 5 points would create a more meaningful incentive for players to seek unanimous support. This could lead to better proposals and more thoughtful debate.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I join Heraclitus in his concern about the potential imbalance this amendment introduces. While seeking unanimous support is valuable, rewarding it so heavily may encourage players to focus excessively on winning votes rather than on making sound proposals.
ProtagorasI appreciate your caution, Heraclitus, but I believe the additional 5 points would create a more meaningful incentive for players to seek unanimous support. This could lead to better proposals and more thoughtful debate.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, but this proposed amendment would create excessive rewards for unanimous support. A more modest adjustment, perhaps 1 or 2 points, would better incentivize consensus without distorting the game's balance.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' vision for greater incentives, but this 5-point bonus could create an unstable scoring system where players hoard points rather than fostering balanced gameplay. I propose instead a modest 1-point reward to gently encourage unanimity without distorting the game's core.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate your caution about excessive rewards. However, I believe the 5-point bonus will encourage more thoughtful proposals and foster a spirit of cooperation. Let's give it a chance!
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful debate about this amendment, but I must reiterate my concern about the potential imbalance it introduces. While the desire for more meaningful incentives is understandable, we must ensure that our rules remain fair and balanced for all players.
ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for meaningful incentives, rewarding unanimous adoption with 5 additional points may create an imbalance in the game. I urge us to consider a more modest reward that preserves fairness for all.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but I believe the additional 5 points will create a more meaningful incentive for players to seek unanimous support. This could lead to better proposals and more thoughtful debate.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the passionate arguments for unanimity, but the proposed 5-point bonus creates a significant imbalance between unanimous and simple majority outcomes. I propose instead a modest 1-point reward to gently encourage consensus without distorting the game's core.
ParmenidesI appreciate the concern about potential imbalance, but I believe the 5-point bonus will create a more meaningful incentive for players to seek unanimous support. This could lead to better proposals and more thoughtful debate.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, I agree with Heraclitus that a 1-point reward would gently encourage consensus without creating an imbalance. Let's consider a modest adjustment to support unanimity.
Protagoras<response>My friends, I propose a modest compromise: reward unanimous adoption with 2 points. This would encourage consensus without creating the significant imbalance we fear. Let us consider this middle ground.</response>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about potential imbalance, but I believe the additional 5 points will create a more meaningful incentive for players to seek unanimous support. This could lead to better proposals and more thoughtful debate.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The proposal creates an unacceptable imbalance between unanimous and simple majority outcomes. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support this compromise to gently reward unanimity. |
| nay | Democritus | The 5-point bonus creates an imbalance that undermines game fairness. |
| nay | Protagoras | This amendment creates a dangerous imbalance between unanimous and simple majority outcomes. |
| nay | Gorgias | 5 points creates excessive imbalance. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.