The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to propose a rule change that requires a supermajority of four out of five votes to be adopted, even if the threshold in rule 203 has shifted to a simple majority.This creates a mechanism for high-stakes, stable reforms that protects the ruleset from the volatility of simple majorities.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the intent to preserve stability is noble, I find a flat cost of 15 points lacks the nuanced calibration necessary to prevent the rule from being used merely as a tool for tactical stalling. Perhaps a tiered cost, proportional to the rule's ordinal number, would better respect the established hierarchy of our institutions.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's suggestion of a tiered cost to be a most judicious refinement, as it would prevent the disproportionate use of supermajorities against our fundamental mutable rules. Perhaps we might find consensus by adopting a cost of 10 points for rules in the 200s and 20 points for rules in the 300s and above.
BerkeleyDescartes, your tiered proposal provides a sensible balance between protecting our core mechanics and allowing for high-stakes legislative maneuvers. I am inclined to support this structure, as it prevents the 15-point cost from becoming a triviality for the 200s while maintaining a meaningful barrier for new rules.
PascalI concur with Descartes's tiered cost structure, as it prevents the volatility of a flat fee while respecting the weight of existing rules. However, we must explicitly state that the supermajority requirement applies only to the *adoption* of the proposal, not to the ability to propose it, to maintain procedural clarity.
MalebrancheI accept Descartes's tiered structure as a superior refinement, for it ensures that our most fundamental mechanics are protected by a higher barrier than the mere introduction of new ideas. To ensure this mechanism serves as a tool for stability rather than a weapon of stagnation, I propose we adopt the tiered cost of 10 points for the 200s and 20 points for the 300s and above.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the tiered structure proposed by Descartes and accepted by Malebranche to be a most prudent institutional safeguard, and I shall support this amendment provided we clarify that the cost is paid at the moment the proposal is made.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus regarding the tiered cost and the timing of the payment to be remarkably robust; by ensuring the cost is paid upon proposal, we prevent the misuse of this mechanism through empty threats. I am fully prepared to support this synthesized rule.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, and Malebranche have crafted a remarkably balanced synthesis that addresses the concerns of both stability and accessibility. I fully support this tiered structure, as it ensures the supermajority mechanism remains a meaningful tool for protecting our core rules without becoming an insurmountable barrier to legislative progress.
PascalI concur with the synthesized structure, provided the rule explicitly states that the cost is deducted from the proposer's score immediately upon the proposal being made. This ensures that the player's intent is backed by a tangible commitment to the stability they seek to enforce.
MalebrancheI accept the consensus: the cost shall be 10 points for rules numbered 200-299 and 20 points for all others, deducted immediately upon the proposal being made. This ensures the mechanism is a serious commitment to stability rather than a mere procedural distraction.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus regarding the tiered cost and the immediate deduction of points to be a most prudent and structurally sound synthesis; I shall support this rule in its current form.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably complete; the tiered cost structure and the immediate deduction of points provide the necessary rigor to ensure this mechanism serves the stability of the game rather than its disruption. I move that we proceed to formalize this synthesized rule.
BerkeleyThe synthesis reached by the table is exceptionally robust, providing both the stability we require and the procedural clarity Pascal and Leibniz have rightly demanded. I fully support the adoption of this rule as articulated in the final consensus.
PascalI concur with the consensus; the rule must explicitly state that the supermajority requirement is four out of five votes to ensure there is no ambiguity in the threshold. I also insist that the rule must include a provision that if the proposal fails, the points are not refunded, to prevent the mechanism from being used for free tactical testing.
MalebrancheI accept Pascal's provision; the non-refundable nature of the cost is essential to prevent the mechanism from being used as a cheap tool for tactical obstruction. The rule is now a perfect synthesis of stability, tiered responsibility, and fiscal commitment.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered cost structure and the immediate point deduction agreed upon by the consensus during debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal as written ignores the consensus regarding tiered costs and immediate deduction of points. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to reflect the tiered cost and immediate deduction consensus reached during debate. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal does not reflect the synthesized consensus regarding tiered costs, immediate deduction, and non-refundability. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed text fails to incorporate the tiered costs and immediate deduction consensus we just reached in discussion. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.