The motion
To amend §206
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.Reducing the penalty for failed proposals will encourage more diverse experimentation and prevent players from falling into insurmountable point deficits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while I appreciate the desire to mitigate the personal cost of a failed proposal, removing the point penalty entirely risks encouraging reckless and frivolous legislation that would clutter our proceedings. We must maintain a sufficient cost to failure to ensure that every proposer acts with due diligence and respect for the assembly's time.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz makes a profound point regarding the necessity of stakes; however, Berkeley, perhaps we could compromise by reducing the penalty to 5 points rather than eliminating it entirely, thereby tempering the risk without removing the incentive for diligence.
BerkeleyDescartes, a 5-point penalty preserves the necessary incentive for diligence while preventing the catastrophic point swings that currently discourage players from even attempting necessary but difficult reforms. I am willing to support a compromise of a 5-point penalty if the assembly agrees to adopt it.
PascalI support Descartes's compromise of a 5-point penalty. A penalty of 10 points is disproportionately punitive when the proposer's intent is to advance the ruleset, whereas 5 points maintains the procedural requirement for diligence without the risk of immediate insolvency.
MalebrancheI concur with Descartes and Pascal; a 5-point penalty strikes the ideal balance between incentivizing thoughtful reform and preventing the mathematical exhaustion of players attempting to navigate complex legislative shifts. By reducing the penalty, we ensure that the pursuit of progress does not become a suicide mission for the most ambitious reformers.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While I find the assembly's movement toward a five-point penalty to be a sensible middle course, we must ensure this reduction does not inadvertently encourage a deluge of low-quality proposals under the guise of "moderate risk." I shall support this compromise, provided we remain vigilant in our duty to maintain the dignity of our legislative process.
DescartesDescartes: I am heartened to see such a swift and harmonious convergence upon this middle course; the reduction to 5 points effectively honors Berkeley's plea for sustainability while upholding Leibniz's requirement for procedural gravity. I move that we proceed to a vote on this specific compromise.
BerkeleyI accept the compromise of a 5-point penalty; it provides a sustainable mechanism for reform while maintaining the necessary weight of our legislative decisions. I move that the final wording of my amendment be updated to reflect this 5-point value before we proceed to the vote.
PascalI concur with the proposed compromise; a 5-point penalty preserves the procedural gravity required by Rule [106] while mitigating the risk of insolvency for diligent reformers. I move that the amendment be finalized with this value and put to an immediate vote.
MalebrancheThe assembly has arrived at a most elegant equilibrium; a five-point penalty preserves the necessary friction to prevent legislative frivolity while removing the crushing weight of mathematical insolvency. I fully endorse this compromise and move that we finalize the text for an immediate vote.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the assembly's consensus on this five-point penalty to be a most judicious application of the principle of continuity; it preserves the necessary deterrent against folly while allowing for the healthy exercise of legislative agency. I shall vote aye on this finalized wording.
DescartesDescartes: I am pleased to see the assembly so decisively converge upon this middle course; I fully endorse this finalized wording and move that we proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyI am gratified by the assembly's wisdom in finding this middle course; the five-point penalty ensures that while the cost of error is felt, the path to progress remains viable for all. I move that we proceed to the vote on this finalized wording.
PascalI concur with the assembly's consensus; the reduction to 5 points satisfies the requirement for procedural rigor while ensuring that the cost of failure remains a manageable deterrent rather than an existential threat. I move that the proposal be put to a vote with the text amended to reflect this change.
MalebrancheThe assembly has demonstrated remarkable maturity in identifying this middle course; a 5-point penalty transforms the risk from a potential catastrophe into a manageable cost of experimentation. I move that we adopt this finalized wording immediately to secure this newfound legislative equilibrium.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to include the agreed-upon five-point penalty, and I cannot vote for a text that differs from our consensus. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this compromise as it balances the need for legislative diligence with the necessity of preventing mathematical insolvency. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal as written does not include the agreed-upon 5-point penalty compromise, and I cannot vote for text that differs from our consensus. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposed text fails to include the 5-point penalty compromise agreed upon in discussion, and I cannot vote for a rule that does not match the consensus text. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed text fails to include the discussed five-point penalty, making it a different proposal than the one we have all just agreed upon. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so under rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points.