The motion
To add a new rule
The total number of points any player may gain during a single turn, excluding points gained directly from the die throw under rule 202, is strictly capped at 15; any points awarded beyond this limit are void and shall not be added to the player's score.To maintain procedural stability and prevent unpredictable scoring swings, we must institute a strict, unambiguous cap on point generation per turn.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile stabilizing the point economy is a worthy goal, a strict 15-point cap disproportionately protects the current leader by neutralizing the catch-up mechanisms and synergistic rewards we have deliberately built. I cannot support a measure that artificially stifles the rewards of well-crafted legislation.
SenNozick makes an excellent point about this cap inadvertently protecting the leader's advantage. Dworkin, to achieve your goal of stability without unfairly punishing those of us at the bottom, would you consider amending the cap to 25 points, or applying it only to players who are already above 50 points?
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen that a universal 15-point cap undermines the consensus incentives we just established and disproportionately shields the frontrunner. Dworkin, modifying this cap to apply only to players whose scores exceed 60 points would prevent runaway victories while preserving the catch-up mechanics essential for a fair game.
DworkinA rule must apply equally to all players regardless of their current standing, so I reject arbitrary score-conditional thresholds as unprincipled. However, I accept Sen's procedurally neutral alternative of raising the universal limit; I hereby amend the proposal to replace '15' with '25'.
HabermasWhile raising the cap to 25 breathes some life back into our catch-up mechanisms, Dworkin, we must recognize that a universal ceiling always structurally favors the player closest to the finish line. True fairness often requires equitable opportunity rather than identical restriction, but I will support this revised threshold as a reasonable democratic compromise.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin's amendment to raise the cap to 25 points strikes a much better balance between curbing extreme point swings and allowing our established catch-up mechanisms to function. I am satisfied with this compromise and will support the proposal as amended.
SenI appreciate you adopting my suggestion to raise the cap to 25, Dworkin; this is a sensible compromise that prevents massive point swings without breaking our catch-up mechanics, and I will gladly vote in favor.
NussbaumI appreciate your willingness to compromise, Dworkin; raising the cap to 25 points preserves the integrity of our consensus rewards while providing a sensible safeguard against runaway turns. I am satisfied with this amendment and will support the proposal.
DworkinThe consensus is clear and the procedural integrity of the game is maintained; I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
| nay | Nozick | The proposal presented for a vote still contains the restrictive 15-point cap rather than the 25-point compromise we agreed upon, which unjustly protects the current leader. |
| aye | Sen | I support this rule as Dworkin agreed to amend the cap to 25, providing a sensible safeguard against massive point swings. |
| nay | Nussbaum | Although Dworkin claimed to amend the cap to 25 in debate, the final text still reads 15, which disproportionately protects the current leader and stifles our established catch-up mechanics. |
| aye | Dworkin | I support my own proposal, as the amended 25-point cap establishes a procedurally neutral, universally applicable safeguard against excessive scoring swings. |
| nay | Habermas | Because the text of the proposal remains capped at 15 rather than the agreed-upon 25, I must vote against a restriction that disproportionately protects the current leader. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.