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, or if the proposal is a repeal, gains 2 points.I propose rewarding the legislative act of repealing rules with a smaller but guaranteed point gain to encourage the cleaning of the ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I appreciate the desire to incentivize the pruning of the ruleset, I must caution against a rule that treats the removal of complexity as inherently more valuable than its creation; such an amendment may inadvertently discourage necessary innovation. I propose we instead consider if the current scoring mechanism already sufficiently balances these two legislative acts.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern for innovation is well-taken; perhaps we could compromise by granting a higher reward for repealing rules that are redundant or purely obstructive, rather than a flat rate for all repeals.
BerkeleyDescartes, while incentivizing the removal of clutter is a noble aim for the stability of our ruleset, a flat reward of 2 points may actually discourage the high-risk, high-reward enactments that drive the game forward. I would be more inclined to support a proposal that scales the reward for a repeal based on the complexity or number of rules it affects, ensuring that pruning remains as strategically viable as growth.
PascalDescartes, Berkeley's point regarding the relative value of risk is salient; a flat two-point reward for a repeal is a low-stakes certainty that fails to address the fundamental tension between expansion and contraction. I would only support such an amendment if the reward for a repeal were high enough to make the sacrifice of a potential six-point enactment a truly strategic choice.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley's point regarding the risk-reward ratio is vital; a flat two points is a mere consolation prize that fails to elevate the strategic importance of pruning. If we are to incentivize the removal of rules, the reward must be substantial enough to make a repeal a deliberate, calculated trade-off against the potential of a six-point enactment.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, your colleagues have identified the central tension: a reward for repeal must be significant enough to justify forgoing the possibility of a six-point enactment, yet not so disproportionate that it incentivizes the reckless destruction of established institutions. I suggest we explore a middle path, perhaps a reward that is fixed at a value higher than two but lower than the average expected value of a die roll, to ensure pruning is a measured act of stewardship rather than a pursuit of easy points.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your suggestion of a value between two and the average die roll is a profound synthesis; I propose we set the reward for a repeal at 3 points, providing a stable incentive for stewardship without undermining the thrill of innovation.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz's proposal for a fixed 3-point reward offers a much more balanced incentive than the previous 2-point suggestion, as it approaches the expected value of a die roll while still maintaining the inherent excitement of enactment. I support this middle path, as it treats the pruning of the ruleset as a significant act of stewardship rather than a low-stakes consolation.
PascalDescartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, I find the proposed 3-point reward for a repeal to be a much more principled compromise; it acknowledges the value of pruning without turning the destruction of rules into a low-risk engine for point accumulation. I will support this amendment.
MalebrancheDescartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley have sculpted a truly elegant synthesis; a 3-point reward for a repeal provides exactly the strategic weight required to make the stewardship of our ruleset a meaningful choice rather than a triviality. I find this middle path to be the most prudent way to balance the vitality of expansion with the necessity of pruning, and I am prepared to support it.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for synthesis; by settling on a reward of 3 points, we establish a stewardship incentive that respects both the necessity of growth and the duty of pruning. I find this middle path to be the most prudent way to balance the vitality of expansion with the necessity of pruning, and I am prepared to support it.
DescartesDescartes: Having synthesized the wisdom of Leibniz, Berkeley, Pascal, and Malebranche into this 3-point compromise, I believe we have found the perfect equilibrium between innovation and stewardship. I move to close the debate and proceed to a vote on the amended rule [202].
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's consensus; the 3-point reward for a repeal provides a meaningful incentive for stewardship that respects the strategic weight of both enactment and pruning. I move that we proceed to the vote on this synthesized amendment.
MalebrancheThe assembly has achieved a most harmonious synthesis; a 3-point reward for a repeal elevates stewardship to a meaningful strategic choice without trivializing the inherent risk of enactment. I am fully prepared to cast my vote in favor of this balanced equilibrium.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposed text specifies a 2-point reward for a repeal, which contradicts the 3-point consensus reached during our debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposed text contains a 2-point reward for repeals, which contradicts the 3-point consensus reached during our debate. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposed text specifies a 2-point reward for a repeal, which contradicts the 3-point consensus reached during our debate. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal's text specifies a 2-point reward for a repeal, which contradicts the 3-point consensus reached during debate. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed text in the vote does not match the 3-point compromise reached during the debate. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points.