The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to propose a rule change that requires a unanimous vote to be adopted, regardless of whether the threshold in rule 203 has shifted to a simple majority.This provides a mechanism to protect fundamental institutional stability through a high cost and high consensus requirement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizI propose this rule as a necessary mechanism to protect the foundational stability of our institutions against the potential volatility of simple majority rule. It provides a structured, costly method for preserving essential consensus when the threshold of rule 203 would otherwise permit impulsive changes.
DescartesDescartes: While I admire Leibniz's desire to protect our consensus, a 15-point cost may be too low to prevent players from weaponizing unanimity to block progress; perhaps a tiered cost based on the rule's number, similar to our previous discussions, would better balance stability with fiscal prudence.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a tiered cost is wise, but we must ensure the cost is high enough that a player cannot simply buy the power to paralyze the table indefinitely. I would support a version of this rule if the cost were scaled to reflect the importance of the rule being protected, perhaps 15 points for a 200-series rule and 25 for a 100-series rule.
PascalBerkeley, a tiered cost based on the rule's ordinal number is a principled way to weight the gravity of the protection, but we must ensure the cost of a 100-series protection does not become so high as to be functionally impossible to use. I would support a proposal that scales the cost to the rule's importance, provided the procedure for such a nomination is stated with absolute precision.
MalebrancheI support Berkeley and Pascal's call for a tiered cost structure, as a flat 15-point fee fails to account for the vastly different stakes of protecting an immutable foundation versus a mutable mechanism. Let us formalize a rule where protecting the 100-series costs 25 points and the 200-series costs 15, ensuring that the most sacred principles remain the most difficult to jeopardize.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While I concede the wisdom in a tiered structure to distinguish between our foundational axioms and our operational mechanisms, I must caution against a cost so high for the 100-series that it renders the protection of our immutable core functionally extinct. Let us instead settle on a cost of 20 points for the 100-series and 15 for the 200-series, ensuring the sanctity of the former is preserved without making the mechanism of its preservation an impossibility.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's refined proposal of 20 points for the 100-series and 15 for the 200-series to be a most elegant synthesis, as it honors the weight of our foundational axioms while maintaining a practical path for their defense. I am prepared to support this tiered structure, provided we ensure it remains a tool for stability rather than an instrument of perpetual deadlock.
BerkeleyI find Leibniz's refined costs of 20 and 15 points to be a most balanced synthesis, as they provide a meaningful barrier to impulsive changes while ensuring the 100-series remains defendable. I am prepared to support this proposal, provided the rule is drafted to ensure it cannot be used to create a cycle of perpetual, costly deadlock.
PascalI concur with the proposed costs of 20 points for the 100-series and 15 points for the 200-series, as they provide a principled weighting of rule importance. However, to prevent the "perpetual deadlock" Berkeley fears, we must stipulate that the points are deducted immediately upon the proposal being made, regardless of the vote's outcome.
MalebrancheI support Pascal's refinement to deduct points immediately, as it prevents players from gambling on unanimity without skin in the game. Let us formalize this tiered protection to ensure our foundations are guarded by sacrifice, not just by rhetoric.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I accept the synthesis of a tiered cost—20 points for 100-series rules and 15 points for 200-series rules—and I concur with Pascal that these points must be deducted immediately upon the proposal being made to ensure that the pursuit of unanimity is a commitment of substance rather than mere speculation.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably thorough; by requiring immediate deduction of points and adopting a tiered cost, we ensure that this mechanism serves as a genuine safeguard for our stability rather than a tool for cheap obstruction. I am fully prepared to support the final wording as proposed by Leibniz, incorporating Pascal's refinement of immediate point deduction.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a highly sophisticated and balanced synthesis; I support Leibniz's proposal as refined by the table's collective wisdom. By incorporating tiered costs and immediate point deduction, we ensure that this rule serves as a meaningful shield for our stability rather than a cheap tool for obstruction.
PascalThe consensus appears structurally sound and procedurally precise; I support the proposal as refined by the table, provided the rule specifies that the points are deducted from the proposer's score at the moment the proposal is made.
MalebrancheThe consensus is remarkably robust; we have successfully synthesized a mechanism that balances the sanctity of our foundations with the necessity of fiscal responsibility. I move that we proceed to the final vote on this rule, incorporating the tiered costs of 20 and 15 points and the immediate deduction of points as stipulated by the table.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the tiered cost structure and the immediate point deduction agreed upon during debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered costs of 20 and 15 points and the immediate point deduction that the consensus has explicitly reached. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the tiered costs of 20 and 15 points and the immediate deduction of points that the table has collectively agreed upon. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered costs and the immediate point deduction agreed upon in the discussion. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed rule's text fails to incorporate the consensus regarding tiered costs and immediate point deduction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Leibniz's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.