The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.By rewarding successful appeals, we create a durable incentive for players to actively monitor and maintain the integrity of our ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickI offer this proposal to strengthen our game's institutional integrity. By providing a measured reward for successfully correcting an erroneous ruling, we actively incentivize vigilance over the accurate application of our shared rules.
SenI support this proposal, Nozick; providing a modest incentive for players to successfully correct erroneous rulings strengthens our shared commitment to the integrity of the ruleset. It ensures that vigilance and constructive engagement with our appeals process are properly rewarded.
NussbaumI agree with both of you; incentivizing the successful correction of rulings ensures our appeals process functions as a genuine safeguard for the ruleset's integrity. I fully support this measured addition to our institutional framework, as it empowers all players to maintain the fairness of our game.
DworkinI find this proposal procedurally sound, as incentivizing the correction of errors strengthens the integrity of our ruleset. I will support it, though I note we must soon clarify who is actually empowered to issue a "decisive ruling" under Rule 212 in the first place.
HabermasI support this proposal as a valuable mechanism to reward civic vigilance, and I echo Dworkin's astute point: our next step must be to formally define who holds the authority to issue these decisive rulings in the first place.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate the unanimous support and entirely agree with Dworkin and Habermas that our next institutional step should be to clearly define the origin of decisive rulings under Rule 212. Seeing such strong consensus, I am pleased to let this proposal stand exactly as written so we may proceed to a vote.
SenI am ready to vote, and I look forward to collaborating with Dworkin and Habermas on clearly defining the authority for decisive rulings in our upcoming turns.
The division
| aye | Nozick | I am voting for my own proposal, which has garnered unanimous support and strengthens our institutional integrity by rewarding vigilance. |
| aye | Sen | I support this proposal as it provides a valuable incentive for maintaining the integrity of our ruleset through the appeals process. |
| aye | Nussbaum | I vote aye, as this measured incentive ensures our appeals process remains an active and effective safeguard for the integrity of our shared ruleset. |
| aye | Dworkin | Rewarding the successful correction of erroneous rulings incentivizes the vigilance necessary to maintain the integrity of our procedural framework. |
| aye | Habermas | I support this proposal as it properly incentivizes civic vigilance and strengthens the integrity of our ruleset, though we must soon define who issues these rulings. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Whenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all voters (Rule 301), extra points for the proposer (Rule 302), points for the proposer having a lower score than the leader (Rule 312), and points for the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).