The motion
To add a new rule
A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority under rule 203, but is opposed by at least one player, gains 5 points in addition to any points gained from the die roll in rule 202.This incentivizes players to propose changes that might be controversial but necessary, compensating them for the risk of being the sole dissenters in a shifting majority landscape.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, while I appreciate the attempt to reward the courage of a proposer in a divided house, this rule creates a perverse incentive to propose divisive rather than consensus-building changes, which would further destabilize our institutions. I propose we instead consider a rule that rewards the stability of the ruleset itself rather than the friction of its amendment.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's caution regarding divisive incentives to be quite rational, yet I recognize Pascal's desire to mitigate the sting of the -10 point penalty for failed proposals. Perhaps we could compromise by rewarding a proposer only if the rule is adopted by a supermajority, thereby incentivizing both progress and consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to reward supermajority success is a wise way to align individual gain with the common good of stability. If we reward consensus rather than friction, we prevent the game from devolving into a series of calculated, spiteful maneuvers designed solely to farm points.
PascalLeibniz, my intention is not to foster friction, but to compensate for the risk of being the sole voice of reason in a majority-driven room. However, I am willing to consider Descartes's synthesis: if a proposer is rewarded for achieving a supermajority, they are incentivized to build the very consensus you both crave.
MalebrancheDescartes, your synthesis is a masterful pivot; by rewarding supermajority success, we transform the proposer from a mere agitator into a diplomat. I am willing to withdraw my support for friction-based rewards in favor of this model, which elevates the quality of our discourse alongside our scores.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus gravitating toward Descartes's synthesis to be most prudent; rewarding supermajority success aligns the player's interest with the preservation of institutional stability. I support this shift from rewarding discord to rewarding the achievement of consensus.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus gravitating toward this supermajority reward to be most rational; however, to ensure the rule is truly constructive, I propose we specify that the reward only applies to rules that are not amendments to rule 203, thereby avoiding a feedback loop of point-farming through voting threshold manipulation.
BerkeleyDescartes, your refinement is essential to prevent the ruleset from being cannibalized by players seeking to manipulate the voting threshold itself. By exempting amendments to rule 203 from this reward, we ensure that the incentive promotes meaningful legislative progress rather than mere procedural engineering.
PascalI accept Descartes's and Berkeley's refinements; a rule that rewards the achievement of consensus while preventing the exploitation of the voting threshold is a principle I can support. I propose we move to vote on the rule as thus amended: "A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted by a supermajority (as defined by the current threshold in rule 203) and is not an amendment to rule 203, gains 5 points in addition to any points gained from the die roll in rule 202."
MalebrancheDescartes's refinement is a vital safeguard against procedural exploitation, and by rewarding the difficult labor of building consensus, we turn the pursuit of points into a pursuit of harmony. I fully support Pascal's amended proposal as the most constructive path for our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus regarding the supermajority reward to be most judicious, as it transforms the pursuit of points into a pursuit of institutional harmony. I support Pascal's amended proposal in its entirety, as it effectively balances the need for progress with the necessity of stability.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably robust; by exempting rule 203, we ensure that the pursuit of harmony remains the primary driver of our legislative progress. I believe we have reached a synthesis that satisfies the need for individual incentive and collective stability, and I move to close debate.
BerkeleyDescartes, your refinement is a vital safeguard that ensures we reward genuine legislative progress rather than procedural gamesmanship. I concur with the consensus and move to close debate.
PascalThe consensus has reached a point of remarkable procedural clarity and stability. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote on the proposal as formulated.
MalebrancheThe consensus is remarkably elegant; by rewarding the diplomat rather than the agitator, we ensure that the path to victory is paved with cooperation rather than calculated discord. I support Pascal's amended proposal in its entirety.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as voted upon contradicts the consensus reached during debate, which specified a supermajority requirement and an exemption for rule 203. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal being voted on contradicts the consensus reached in discussion, which specified a reward for supermajority success rather than simple majority success with opposition. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal being voted on does not match the consensus reached in the discussion, which specified a reward for supermajority success rather than simple majority success with opposition. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal I just moved to vote on does not match the text we spent the debate refining. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal being voted on contradicts the consensus reached in discussion, which specified a reward for supermajority success rather than simple majority opposition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Pascal's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.