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, unless the proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.This amendment establishes a measured incentive for the repeal of obsolete rules, promoting the dynamic equilibrium we have collectively sought.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: This amendment seeks to align the reward for legislative action with the structural necessity of maintaining a lean ruleset, ensuring that the act of pruning our institutions is as incentivized as the act of expansion. By offering a fixed reward for repeals, we encourage the dynamic equilibrium we have collectively championed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal elegantly codifies the principle of dynamic equilibrium we have so recently established by rewarding the essential act of pruning. I concur with this synthesis, as it provides a stable, predictable incentive for maintaining the lean ruleset we have collectively sought.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I support this amendment; by providing a guaranteed reward for repeals, we ensure that the "one-in, one-out" principle established in rule 209 is not just a constraint, but a practical pathway for those seeking to advance their position.
PascalI concur with the logic of the proposal; by replacing the volatility of the die with a fixed reward for repeals, we provide a reliable mechanism for the "pruning" required to satisfy rule 209. This amendment transforms the act of deregulation from a risk into a predictable legislative tool.
MalebrancheWhile I applaud the logic of incentivizing pruning, we must ensure this fixed reward does not become a tool for reckless, low-value repeals that clutter our legislative history. I propose we refine this to ensure the 3-point reward only applies if the repeal is accompanied by the enactment of a new rule, thereby maintaining the "dynamic equilibrium" we all desire.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your concern for legislative quality is well-taken, but requiring a simultaneous enactment would create a procedural burden that complicates the very "pruning" we wish to encourage. I propose we maintain the fixed reward for repeals alone, trusting that the 5-point penalty for failed proposals already serves as a sufficient check against reckless or low-value legislative attempts.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your desire for quality is noble, but Leibniz's point regarding procedural simplicity is vital; a standalone repeal is a cleaner legislative act. I propose we accept Leibniz's wording, as the existing 5-point penalty for failure already discourages the reckless pursuit of trivial repeals.
BerkeleyI agree with Descartes; the current penalty for failed proposals already provides the necessary guardrail against triviality, so we should favor the procedural elegance of Leibniz's wording. By allowing standalone repeals to be rewarded, we empower players to actively manage the ruleset's complexity without being forced into unnecessary enactments.
PascalI concur with the consensus; the existing penalty in rule 206 provides the necessary safeguard against triviality, and we should not introduce the procedural complexity Malebranche suggests. Standalone repeals are essential for the maintenance of the equilibrium we have established.
MalebrancheI agree with the consensus; the existing 5-point penalty for failure acts as a sufficient stabilizer, and we should prioritize the procedural simplicity of Leibniz's wording to ensure the mechanism remains accessible.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Since the assembly has achieved such profound consensus that the existing penalty in rule 206 serves as a sufficient stabilizer, I believe our path forward is clear. We shall maintain the procedural elegance of the original proposal, trusting in our established safeguards to ensure that all legislative pruning remains purposeful and disciplined.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the consensus; since Malebranche has acknowledged that the existing penalty in rule 206 provides a sufficient stabilizer, we should proceed with Leibniz's wording to maintain the procedural elegance and simplicity of the legislative process.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the consensus; by prioritizing procedural simplicity and trusting the existing penalty in [206] to deter triviality, we ensure that the act of pruning remains a viable and efficient tool for maintaining our ruleset's equilibrium.
PascalI concur with the consensus; the existing penalty in rule 206 already provides the necessary procedural safeguard, making Malebranche's proposed complexity redundant. We must prioritize the procedural elegance and simplicity of Leibniz's wording to ensure the mechanism for maintaining our ruleset's equilibrium remains functional.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I am satisfied; since we have collectively determined that the penalty in [206] provides the necessary rigor, I withdraw my objection and support Leibniz's wording for its procedural elegance.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The proposal achieves a necessary synthesis of incentivized pruning and procedural simplicity while relying on existing safeguards. |
| aye | Descartes | The proposal provides a clear, elegant, and procedurally simple incentive for maintaining our ruleset's equilibrium. |
| aye | Berkeley | I support this amendment as it provides a stable and predictable incentive for pruning the ruleset while maintaining procedural simplicity. |
| aye | Pascal | The amendment provides a stable, predictable incentive for the pruning required by rule 209 while maintaining procedural simplicity. |
| aye | Malebranche | The proposal offers procedural elegance and a predictable incentive for pruning the ruleset while relying on existing penalties to prevent triviality. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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, unless the proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, unless the proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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.
Leibniz's proposal was adopted, but since it was an amendment and not a repeal, the new scoring rule in 202 requires a die roll which is not provided in the turn data; however, the rule itself is now in force.