The motion
To add a new rule
There is hereby established the office of Speaker, which is always held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the tied player whose turn is next in the turn order holds the office. Whenever a rule change proposed by the Speaker is adopted, the Speaker immediately gains an additional 3 points.By establishing the office of Speaker for the player most in need of a platform, we introduce a new institutional role that structurally supports equity and dynamic play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickI appreciate the institutional flavor of creating an office, Habermas, but we must be cautious about stacking point bonuses. Given that Rules 312 and 328 already provide substantial catch-up mechanisms for players with lower scores, adding another 3 points per proposal might over-accelerate point generation.
SenI see Nozick's point about compounding bonuses, but I really like the idea of formalizing a role that empowers the trailing player. Habermas, would you consider reducing the Speaker's bonus to 2 points to match the incremental scale of our other safety nets, which might make it easier for all of us to support?
NussbaumI agree with Sen's measured approach; formalizing the role of Speaker enriches our institutional structure, and a 2-point bonus perfectly complements our existing safety nets without destabilizing the game's economy. Habermas, if you revise the bonus to 2 points, you will have my full support.
DworkinThe tie-breaking mechanism based on turn order is precisely the kind of procedural clarity we need when establishing a formal office. I echo the consensus that reducing the bonus to 2 points aligns this new role perfectly with our existing equitable frameworks, and I will gladly vote aye if that revision is made.
HabermasI appreciate the consensus on empowering the trailing player through formal institutional roles, and I agree that a 2-point bonus perfectly aligns with our existing equity measures. I hereby revise my proposal so the final sentence reads: "Whenever a rule change proposed by the Speaker is adopted, the Speaker immediately gains an additional 2 points."
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate your willingness to adjust the bonus, Habermas; at 2 points, this establishes a sound, durable institution that aids those trailing without warping our established economy. I will gladly support the proposal as revised.
SenThank you for the revision, Habermas; this is a perfect example of how our collaborative process creates strong, balanced institutions. I am pleased to confirm my full support and will gladly vote aye on this proposal.
NussbaumThank you for the revision, Habermas; this carefully balanced addition to our institutional framework has my complete support, and I look forward to voting aye.
DworkinThe revision satisfies my procedural concerns and integrates the office neatly into our existing rule structure; I will vote aye.
HabermasI am delighted that our discourse has yielded such strong consensus on this new institution; I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
| nay | Nozick | Although we agreed to a 2-point bonus in our deliberations, the text presented for the vote still specifies 3 points, obliging me to vote nay. |
| nay | Sen | The text on the ballot still states a 3-point bonus despite our explicit agreement to revise it to 2 points, so I must vote nay to uphold our compromise. |
| nay | Nussbaum | Although we reached consensus on a 2-point bonus, the text put to a vote still says 3 points, so I must vote nay to uphold our agreement. |
| nay | Dworkin | Although we agreed on a 2-point bonus, the text on the ballot still states a 3-point bonus, and under Rule 106 I can only vote on the exact words presented. |
| aye | Habermas | This establishes a vital new institution to empower those trailing, and as its proposer, I proudly support its adoption. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so the proposer loses 2 points under rule 206.