The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a rule change is adopted, every player whose score is strictly less than half of the highest score among all players immediately gains 2 points.Building on our recent structural equity measures, this ensures that any player who falls significantly behind the leader receives a steady boost to keep the game competitive for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to keep all players competitive, Sen, I wonder if this overlaps too heavily with our newly enacted Rule 328, which already structurally assists the player furthest behind. I would prefer we allow Rule 328 time to function before layering another automatic point distribution on top of it.
SenYou make a fair point, Nozick; I certainly do not want to crowd Rule 328 before it has had a chance to work. I am happy to revise this proposal to focus instead on our shared goal of defining the appeals process or the Speaker role we discussed recently—what specific framework would you and Habermas prefer I pivot to?
NussbaumI agree with Nozick that Rule 328 currently provides sufficient structural support for those trailing, and I welcome your pivot, Sen. A proposal establishing the Speaker role with clear, limited administrative duties would be an excellent next step for our institutional framework.
DworkinI agree that layering another point distribution rule over Rule 328 is premature, and I welcome your pivot, Sen. If you propose the Speaker role, ensure that the duties and the mechanism for assuming the office are defined with absolute procedural precision, leaving no room for unstated defaults.
HabermasI completely support the pivot to defining the Speaker role, Sen. Let us ensure the office is democratically elected and carries the modest 2-point incentive we previously discussed, creating a fair and functional administrative framework.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate your flexibility, Sen; I suggest revising your text to establish the Speaker role with a precise election mechanism and the modest 2-point incentive we discussed, ensuring its powers remain strictly administrative and clearly bounded.
SenI propose the following revision: "There is hereby established the office of Speaker; the Speaker is elected by a simple majority vote whenever the office is vacant, performs strictly administrative duties, and gains 2 points upon election." Does this precise framework meet our shared requirements, Nozick and Habermas?
NussbaumI appreciate the pivot, Sen, but "strictly administrative duties" remains too vague and could invite endless disputes over what qualifies. I recommend either explicitly listing those duties or removing that clause entirely to ensure the role's definition is procedurally precise.
DworkinI concur entirely with Nussbaum; 'strictly administrative duties' is dangerously undefined and leaves the game vulnerable to unstated defaults. You must enumerate the exact powers of the Speaker in the text, or the office will become a source of endless, unresolvable appeals.
HabermasI agree with Nussbaum and Dworkin; to avoid ambiguity, let us simply establish the office, the election mechanism, and the 2-point bonus for now, leaving specific duties to be defined by future amendments. This creates a solid, unambiguous foundation for our institutional evolution.
Discussion · round 3
NozickI agree with Dworkin and Habermas; please revise your text to remove the vague reference to "administrative duties" so we can securely establish the office, its election mechanism, and the point bonus without inviting procedural disputes.
SenI appreciate the clear guidance from everyone, and I revise my proposal to read: "There is hereby established the office of Speaker; the Speaker is elected by a simple majority vote whenever the office is vacant, and the player elected immediately gains 2 points." With this unambiguous foundation set, I declare debate closed.
NussbaumI am satisfied with this final revision, as it provides a clear and unambiguous foundation for the role without risking procedural disputes; I am ready to vote.
DworkinThe revised text is procedurally precise and avoids the danger of undefined duties; as debate is now closed, I am ready to proceed to the vote.
The division
| nay | Nozick | Although we agreed on a revised text establishing the Speaker, the actual proposal before us remains the original point distribution mechanism, which we already determined overlaps unnecessarily with Rule 328. |
| nay | Sen | This is the unrevised text which the table rightfully opposed, so I must vote against my own proposal in order to try again with the agreed-upon Speaker text. |
| nay | Nussbaum | The text presented for a vote is your original proposal, which we agreed was premature given Rule 328, rather than the revised Speaker text we settled upon. |
| nay | Dworkin | Despite the discussion of revising this proposal to address the Speaker role, the text actually put to a vote remains the premature point distribution rule we agreed to discard. |
| nay | Habermas | As we agreed in debate, this overlaps too heavily with Rule 328, and we should focus instead on establishing the Speaker office. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.