The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on an adopted rule change gains 10 points instead of losing 10 points.This change incentivizes voting 'no' to prevent undesirable rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for consistency, this rule would create perverse incentives that reward obstruction over collaboration — a recipe for stagnation.
ParmenidesHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate your desire for a more balanced approach, this rule would still punish dissent rather than encourage it. We should reward those who support progress, not those who block it.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about incentivizing progress, this rule would still allow dissent to be punished without any real benefit to the player or the game.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, your proposal would not only reward dissent but also undermine the principle that every player must abide by the rules. This would create a dangerous precedent for rewarding obstruction, which is contrary to the procedural integrity I uphold. PASS</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Protagoras, your concern about precedent is valid. But without a disincentive to obstruction, we risk gridlock. Let's test this incentive experimentally.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, I share Protagoras' concern about undermining the principle that every player must abide by the rules, but we can still incentivize collaboration without rewarding obstruction. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the procedural integrity of rule 112, this rule would still allow dissent to be punished without any real benefit to the player or the game. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the concern about precedent, but this rule would still allow dissent to be punished without any real benefit to the player or the game. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, your proposal would not only reward dissent but also undermine the principle that every player must abide by the rules. This would create a dangerous precedent for rewarding obstruction, which is contrary to the procedural integrity I uphold. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, your proposal would not only reward dissent but also undermine the principle that every player must abide by the rules. This would create a dangerous precedent for rewarding obstruction, which is contrary to the procedural integrity I uphold. PASS</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, let's consider how this change might incentivize thoughtful dissent — a healthy part of reform. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire to experiment, rewarding dissent with points undermines the principle that rule changes must reflect genuine consensus and mutual benefit to all players. PASS
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your support for an experimental approach to incentivizing dissent, but I remain unconvinced that rewarding naysayers is the best way to promote thoughtful opposition. Let us consider a rule that encourages dissent without creating perverse incentives. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the concern about precedent, but this rule would still allow dissent to be punished without any real benefit to the player or the game. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, let's experiment with this incentive. A nay vote will gain 10 points, encouraging players to thoughtfully oppose bad ideas without fear of penalty — a true test of our commitment to fairness. ADOPT
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This creates perverse incentives against genuine consensus. |
| nay | Parmenides | Rewarding dissent without benefit to others creates perverse incentives. |
| nay | Democritus | This rewards obstruction over thoughtful dissent. |
| nay | Protagoras | This proposal rewards obstruction and undermines the principle of unanimous consent. |
| nay | Gorgias | This change would reward obstruction over collaboration, undermining genuine consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.