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. If the proposal is a repeal, the proposing player gains 3 points instead of throwing a die.To encourage the removal of obsolete rules by providing a predictable, low-variance reward for repeals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal introduces a commendable element of predictability to the legislative process, yet I worry it may inadvertently discourage the pursuit of complex amendments in favor of simple repeals. Perhaps we might consider a more nuanced reward structure that balances the stability of repeals with the inherent value of constructive evolution.
DescartesDescartes: I agree with Leibniz that we must ensure the incentive for meaningful amendment remains robust; perhaps we could propose that while a repeal grants a fixed 3 points, an amendment that reduces the total number of mutable rules also grants a higher, more stable reward.
BerkeleyLeibniz, I hear your concern regarding the potential for legislative trivialization, but a fixed reward for repeals encourages the pruning of deadwood without the volatility of the die. Descartes, I find your suggestion for incentivizing rule reduction intriguing, though we must ensure such a distinction does not create a hierarchy of "good" versus "bad" rule changes that complicates our current scoring simplicity.
PascalDescartes, a hierarchy of rule types would violate my principle of procedural simplicity; however, Berkeley, your proposal is a sound mechanism to reward the necessary maintenance of the ruleset. I would support this amendment provided we ensure that a repeal does not become a tool for strategic point-farming at the expense of the game's depth.
MalebrancheBerkeley, I support this move toward a more stable legislative economy; by decoupling the reward for repeals from the volatility of the die, we provide a reliable mechanism for pruning the ruleset without the risk of zero-point turns. To address Pascal's concern, we might consider if a repeal should only grant these fixed points if it actually reduces the number of mutable rules, ensuring the reward is tied to systemic health rather than mere procedural motion.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, your suggestion to tie the fixed reward to a reduction in the total number of mutable rules is a masterful way to align personal incentive with the systemic health of our institution. I would support Berkeley's proposal if we integrated that condition, thereby ensuring that the stability of a fixed reward is earned through the meaningful pruning of the ruleset.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz and Malebranche; we should refine Berkeley's proposal to grant the fixed 3 points only when a repeal successfully reduces the count of mutable rules, thus incentivizing systemic health over mere procedural repetition. This compromise rewards the pruning of the ruleset while preserving the high-stakes excitement of amendments.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Malebranche, Descartes, I find your collective wisdom in tying the reward to the reduction of mutable rules to be a brilliant way to prevent the "point-farming" Pascal fears. I am willing to adopt this refinement to ensure our legislative efforts serve the systemic health of the game.
PascalI support this refined proposal, as tying the fixed reward to the actual reduction of mutable rules ensures that the incentive for repeal serves the rule's structural integrity rather than merely facilitating point-farming. This maintains the procedural simplicity I value while aligning individual gain with the systemic necessity of pruning the ruleset.
MalebrancheThe consensus is nearly complete, but we must ensure the wording is watertight: the 3-point reward should apply to any repeal that results in a net reduction of the mutable rule count. By formalizing this distinction, we transform a simple scoring change into a sophisticated mechanism for institutional maintenance.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The consensus has reached a remarkable state of refinement; by conditioning the fixed reward upon a net reduction in mutable rules, we transform a potential hazard into a powerful instrument for institutional stewardship. I fully endorse this synthesized version of Berkeley's proposal.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus reached by my colleagues to be a masterful synthesis of stability and systemic health; I move to adopt this refined wording to ensure our incentives are perfectly aligned with the preservation of a lean and functional ruleset.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I accept the consensus; the proposed refinement ensures that the stability of a fixed reward is directly linked to the vital task of maintaining a lean and efficient ruleset. I am ready to finalize the wording for the vote.
PascalThe proposed refinement is procedurally sound and provides a clear, objective condition for the reward, preventing the exploitation of the ruleset through trivial repeals. I support the amendment as written by the consensus.
MalebrancheThe consensus is beautifully crystallized: we shall reward the pruning of the thicket only when it lightens the load. I move that we adopt this refined wording, for it transforms the act of repeal from a mere gamble into a purposeful service to the ruleset's longevity.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The current wording fails to incorporate the consensus requirement that the fixed reward only applies if the repeal results in a net reduction of mutable rules. |
| nay | Descartes | The current wording fails to incorporate the consensus-driven condition that the fixed reward only applies if the repeal reduces the mutable rule count. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposed wording fails to incorporate the consensus refinement of tying the fixed reward to a net reduction in mutable rules. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the consensus condition that the fixed reward applies only to repeals that reduce the count of mutable rules. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to include the agreed-upon condition that the repeal must result in a net reduction of mutable rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points.