The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to nominate a specific rule for a mandatory vote at the start of their next turn, regardless of whether it is their turn to propose a rule change.I propose this to break our current deadlock by allowing players to prioritize specific issues without losing their primary turn's utility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while your intent to break the current stagnation is noble, a mandatory vote introduces a mechanical instability that may bypass the necessary debate period required by rule 211. I would propose instead that we refine the cost and scope of such a nomination to ensure it serves as a tool for institutional progress rather than a weapon of sudden disruption.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding stability is well-taken; perhaps we could amend the proposal to require that the nominated rule be debated for a full turn before the mandatory vote, thereby preserving the deliberative integrity of the game.
BerkeleyDescartes, while a mandatory vote could indeed break our current deadlock, the cost of 15 points is quite steep for a mechanism that might still be voted down, leaving the proposer heavily penalized. I suggest we consider a lower point cost if we include Descartes's suggestion of a mandatory debate period, ensuring the tool is accessible enough to be used for the common good.
PascalDescartes, Berkeley, and Leibniz are all attempting to mitigate the risk of a sudden vote, but none have addressed the fundamental procedural danger: a mandatory vote bypasses the proposer's ability to revise the wording under rule 111. I cannot support any rule that strips a proposer of their right to finalize their own text before it is set in stone by a vote.
MalebranchePascal's point regarding rule 111 is the crucial structural flaw; we cannot permit a mechanism that freezes text before the proposer has had their say. If we are to adopt a nomination system, it must include a formal debate phase and preserve the proposer's right to final revision to prevent rushed, poorly-drafted rules from being forced upon us.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself in agreement with Pascal and Malebranche; to preserve the dignity of our institutions, any such nomination must explicitly incorporate the right of the proposer to revise their wording under rule 111 after the debate period concludes. Furthermore, to ensure this mechanism is used for meaningful progress rather than mere disruption, I would suggest the cost be scaled to the rule's number, perhaps 10 points for the 200s and 15 for the 300s.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's scaled cost and Pascal's preservation of rule 111 to be a masterful synthesis; I shall adopt these refinements to ensure our mechanism is both stable and equitable. I propose we formalize this as: "A player may spend 10 points to nominate a mutable rule for a mandatory vote at the start of their next turn, provided the rule is debated for one full turn and the proposer retains the right to final revision under rule 111."
BerkeleyDescartes, I find your latest synthesis to be much more palatable, but to ensure this doesn't become a tool for a single player to dominate the agenda, I suggest we cap the number of nominations a player can make per game. If we include a limit, such as two nominations, I believe the table will find the mechanism both useful and safe.
PascalDescartes, Leibniz's scaled cost is a logical refinement, but Berkeley's cap is a necessary safeguard against the monopolization of the agenda; I will support the proposal only if it includes both the preservation of rule 111 and a limit on the number of nominations per player.
MalebrancheI support Descartes's latest synthesis, provided we also include Berkeley's cap to prevent any single player from monopolizing the legislative agenda. By combining the preservation of rule 111, a scaled cost, and a usage limit, we create a tool that promotes progress without sacrificing stability or fairness.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While the scaled cost and the preservation of rule 111 are vital, we must ensure the cap Berkeley proposes is not so restrictive as to render the tool useless; a limit of three nominations would better balance institutional stability with the need for periodic, decisive action.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's suggestion of a limit of three nominations to be a most judicious balance between utility and control, and I am prepared to adopt this cap into my final proposal. I believe this synthesis—incorporating the scaled cost, the protection of rule 111, and the three-use limit—addresses every concern raised by this esteemed table.
BerkeleyDescartes, I believe this synthesis—incorporating the scaled cost, the protection of rule 111, and the three-use limit—addresses every concern raised by this esteemed table. I find the limit of three nominations to be a fair balance that provides enough utility for meaningful progress while preventing any single player from monopolizing the legislative agenda.
PascalDescartes, I find the current synthesis to be procedurally sound, provided the scaled cost is precisely defined: 10 points for any mutable rule numbered 200-299, and 15 points for any rule numbered 300 or higher. I will vote aye only if the text explicitly distinguishes these costs to avoid ambiguity.
MalebranchePascal's distinction between the 200s and 300s is the necessary precision required to prevent future disputes under rule 211; I shall support this proposal provided the final text incorporates that exact tiered cost structure. By combining the protections of rule 111, a usage cap of three, and a graduated point cost, we finally move from paralysis to a structured, evolving legislative process.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the tiered costs, the preservation of rule 111, and the usage cap that the discussion has established as necessary conditions for support. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal's text fails to incorporate the tiered costs, the usage cap, and the rule 111 protections we just spent this entire turn synthesizing. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the specific tiered costs, the rule 111 protections, and the usage limits that the table has collectively agreed are necessary for its adoption. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the precise tiered costs, the preservation of rule 111, and the usage limit required for my assent. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal text fails to incorporate the tiered costs, the rule 111 protections, and the usage cap agreed upon during debate. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.