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, and the proposer loses 5 points.A 10-point penalty for failure is disproportionately punitive compared to the potential 6-point gain for success, incentivizing reckless rule-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your proposal to reduce the penalty from ten points to five is a sensible moderation that seeks to encourage legislative participation without entirely removing the necessity of caution. I find this middle course much more conducive to the steady maintenance of our institutions than the current punitive standard.
DescartesDescartes: I agree with Leibniz; reducing the penalty to five points provides a more balanced incentive structure that mitigates the risk of a single failed innovation paralyzing a player's progress. I support this amendment as a constructive way to foster a more active and less fearful legislative environment.
BerkeleyBerkeley: While I previously argued for the ten-point penalty to ensure legislative prudence, I concede that the current scoring deficit across the table suggests a need for greater encouragement of movement. I will support Pascal's amendment to five points to prevent the game from descending into a purely defensive stalemate.
PascalI appreciate the support from my colleagues; I maintain that a five-point penalty strikes the necessary balance between discouraging reckless proposals and preventing the scoring stagnation that currently threatens our momentum. This amendment ensures that the cost of a mistake is significant, yet not so catastrophic as to preclude meaningful legislative engagement.
MalebrancheI concur with the consensus; reducing the penalty to five points transforms the cost of failure from a structural deterrent into a manageable risk, thereby catalyzing the very evolution this game requires. This adjustment is not a dilution of discipline, but a necessary recalibration to ensure that the fear of deficit does not stifle the spirit of reform.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Having observed the unanimous consensus regarding the necessity of this recalibration, I find no reason to dissent from a proposal that so effectively balances prudence with the vital need for legislative momentum. I cast my support for Pascal's amendment.
DescartesDescartes: The assembly's alignment is truly remarkable; by transforming a punitive barrier into a manageable risk, we are collectively choosing progress over paralysis. I find no reason to dissent from this elegant synthesis and urge all to vote aye.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The consensus is clear; by lowering the barrier to entry for new ideas, we ensure the ruleset remains a living document rather than a monument to caution. I move to end debate and proceed to a vote.
PascalSince the assembly has reached a consensus on the merits of this recalibration, I declare debate closed. I move to a vote on the amendment to rule [206] as written.
MalebrancheThe consensus is absolute; we are replacing a regime of fear with a regime of calculated risk, which is the only way to ensure the ruleset continues to evolve. I cast my aye and urge the assembly to finalize this vital recalibration.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizThe assembly has demonstrated a most profound and unified wisdom in recognizing that the preservation of momentum is as essential to our stability as the preservation of order. I find the consensus to be unassailable and urge my colleagues to formalize this necessary recalibration.
DescartesDescartes: The assembly's unanimous alignment on this recalibration is a testament to our collective desire for a more dynamic legislative environment; I fully endorse Pascal's amendment and urge all to vote aye.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The consensus is overwhelming and the reasoning sound; by reducing the penalty, we invite the very engagement required to keep our ruleset vital. I vote aye.
PascalThe consensus has been thoroughly articulated, and the procedural necessity of this amendment is clear; I move that we proceed to the vote to finalize this recalibration.
MalebrancheThe consensus is so complete that any further hesitation would be a betrayal of our shared commitment to progress. I cast my aye to finalize this essential recalibration and move us beyond the era of stagnation.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | I support this moderation to encourage legislative momentum while preserving necessary prudence. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this amendment as a necessary measure to foster legislative momentum and prevent scoring stagnation. |
| aye | Berkeley | Reducing the penalty to five points encourages necessary legislative activity and prevents scoring stagnation. |
| aye | Pascal | The reduction of the penalty from ten to five points provides a necessary incentive for legislative activity without discarding all accountability. |
| aye | Malebranche | Lowering the penalty from ten to five points facilitates necessary legislative momentum by transforming a catastrophic deficit into a manageable risk. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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.
Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.
The proposal amends rule 206, but no existing rule awards or deducts points upon the successful adoption of an amendment.