The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a rule change is adopted, every player who voted aye on that proposal, excluding its proposer, gains 1 point.To encourage consensus-building and reward active participation in passing constructive legislation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickThis proposal fosters a healthy legislative environment by modestly rewarding players who contribute to a passing consensus. By excluding the proposer, it ensures the incentive encourages collaborative evaluation of new rules rather than self-serving point generation.
SenI appreciate the spirit of rewarding consensus, but this effectively acts as a 1-point tax on the proposer relative to the rest of the board. Nozick, would you consider amending it to include the proposer, or is this intended to curb rapid-fire legislating?
NussbaumWhile I value consensus, rewarding 'aye' votes directly might encourage us to pass flawed proposals just to secure a point. We should be voting based on the merit of the rule, not a minor score incentive.
DworkinNussbaum is precisely correct; attaching a point reward to an 'aye' vote corrupts the integrity of our legislative procedure. A vote must reflect a principled judgment on a proposal's merit, not a transaction to manufacture points.
HabermasDworkin and Nussbaum are absolutely right that paying for 'aye' votes degrades our discourse into a mere transaction. If we want to encourage an active legislature, we should reward participation itself—perhaps by granting a point to anyone who votes, regardless of how they cast it.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate the concern that rewarding 'aye' votes might distort our judgment. I will amend the proposal to instead grant 3 points to the proposer whenever their rule change is adopted, thereby incentivizing the drafting of genuinely meritorious rules that can earn majority support.
SenI think Nozick's amendment is a significant improvement that aligns our incentives toward crafting quality proposals. I'm happy to support this version, as it rewards the hard work of finding consensus without distorting how we cast our individual votes.
NussbaumNozick's amendment resolves my concern entirely; rewarding the author for a successful proposal encourages thoughtful drafting without corrupting the vote itself. I will gladly support this revised version.
DworkinThe revised principle respects the integrity of our procedure by rewarding the drafting of meritorious rules rather than purchasing votes. I will support the proposal as amended.
HabermasNozick's amendment is a welcome improvement; rewarding the architect of a successful consensus honors the communicative effort required to craft good rules. I am fully in favor of this revised proposal.
Discussion · round 3
NozickSince there is clear consensus for this revision, I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Whenever a rule change is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points." and I declare debate closed.
The division
| nay | Nozick | Since the ballot reflects my original text rather than my intended amendment, I must vote nay to avoid enacting a flawed incentive structure. |
| nay | Sen | The ballot contains the original text that we all agreed was flawed, rather than the amended version Nozick intended to submit. |
| nay | Nussbaum | Although Nozick intended to amend this, the ballot still contains the original text rewarding 'aye' votes, which I must oppose as it incentivizes passing flawed rules just for points. |
| nay | Dworkin | The text put to a vote still rewards 'aye' votes, which corrupts the integrity of our legislative procedure despite the proposer's stated intent to amend it. |
| nay | Habermas | Although Nozick intended to amend this to reward the proposer, the text on the ballot still rewards 'aye' votes, which degrades our discourse into a mere transaction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.