The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to declare an official team consisting of themselves and up to two other players; members of a team may consult freely between themselves, and for the purposes of voting on a proposal, a team's votes are counted as a single block that must be unanimous to act.Formalizing team structures provides a mechanism for coordinated legislative progress and breaks the current cycle of individual paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the creation of official teams is a logical step toward coordination, your proposal to consolidate votes into a single block risks creating an impenetrable legislative monolith that undermines the individual accountability essential to our institutions. I would suggest that teams be allowed to consult freely as per rule 210, but that each member must still cast their individual vote to preserve the granular check of the majority.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz makes a profound point regarding accountability, yet Malebranche's desire for coordination is evident; perhaps we might find a synthesis where teams can consult freely under rule 210, but the voting power remains individual to prevent the very monolith Leibniz fears.
BerkeleyLeibniz and Descartes are correct that a voting bloc could easily become a tool for tyranny; however, I believe the issue is not the block itself, but the cost. If we allow teams to form at a higher point cost, it serves as a meaningful investment in coordination rather than a cheap way to bypass the democratic weight of the table.
PascalI agree with Leibniz and Descartes that individual voting is necessary to prevent a single entity from exerting disproportionate influence through a forced block. If a team is to exist, it must be a mechanism for consultation under rule 210, not a way to circumvent the requirement for individual accountability in the voting process.
MalebrancheLeibniz and Pascal, you mistake a tool for coordination for a tool for subversion; a team that must act unanimously is not a monolith, but a pact of mutual restraint that prevents any single rogue member from betraying the group. If the cost is high and the requirement for internal consensus is absolute, the mechanism serves to foster genuine, stable alliances rather than mere tactical voting blocks.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while I respect the logic of mutual restraint, a single block of votes reduces the complexity of our legislative process and risks disenfranchising the minority within the team; I maintain that the sanctity of the individual vote is a more durable foundation for our institutions.
DescartesDescartes: I find Malebranche's argument for mutual restraint compelling, yet I must side with Leibniz and Pascal that the integrity of the individual vote is paramount; perhaps we can find a synthesis by allowing teams to form at a high cost for the sole purpose of consultation, while maintaining that each member must still cast their own vote.
BerkeleyMalebranche, your argument for mutual restraint is logically sound, but the risk of a voting block paralyzing the table or creating a "monolith" remains too high under the current structure. I propose we compromise: allow the formation of teams at a high cost of 25 points for the purpose of free consultation under rule 210, but maintain that each member must cast their own individual vote to preserve the granular accountability Leibniz and Pascal rightly demand.
PascalBerkeley, your compromise of 25 points for consultation preserves the essential procedural integrity I seek, but I would further insist that any team must still be subject to the standard voting requirements of rule 207 to ensure no single block can bypass the individual's duty to the ruleset.
MalebrancheBerkeley, your 25-point compromise for consultation is a noble attempt at stability, but it fails to address the core necessity of my proposal: the power of a unified, yet internally restrained, voice. I will accept a cost of 30 points to ensure that such a significant structural commitment is a true investment in collective agency, provided the unanimity requirement remains to prevent the very "monolith" Leibniz fears.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, a 30-point cost for a voting block that still requires internal unanimity is a paradox that imposes a heavy burden for a mechanism that may frequently result in inaction; I remain convinced that the most stable institution is one where coordination is sought through consultation under rule 210, while the formal act of voting remains the sacred responsibility of the individual.
DescartesDescartes: I find myself admiring the tension between Malebranche's desire for a unified voice and the table's collective insistence on individual accountability; perhaps a final synthesis lies in allowing teams to form for 25 points for consultation, but where the team's "single block" vote is only triggered if all members agree on a single, shared vote to be cast by a designated spokesperson.
BerkeleyDescartes, your idea of a spokesperson is an interesting way to formalize the unified voice Malebranche seeks, but it risks adding unnecessary procedural complexity. I would instead favor the simpler compromise of a 25-point cost for consultation under rule 210, ensuring that while teammates may coordinate their strategy, the actual casting of votes remains an individual responsibility as per rule 207.
PascalBerkeley, your proposal for a 25-point cost for consultation is the most procedurally sound synthesis, as it respects the necessity of coordination under rule 210 without compromising the individual accountability mandated by rule 207. I will support a rule that permits team formation at 25 points for the purpose of consultation, provided that voting remains an individual act.
MalebrancheBerkeley, Pascal, you seek to strip the very soul from my proposal by reducing a "team" to nothing more than a conversation permitted by rule 210. If a team cannot act as a single, unified entity through a unanimous block, then the 25 or 30 points spent are wasted on a mere social club rather than a meaningful legislative instrument.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal risks creating a legislative monolith that undermines the individual accountability essential to our institutions. |
| nay | Descartes | I cannot support a rule that replaces individual accountability with a single, potentially paralyzing voting block. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal risks creating legislative monoliths that undermine individual accountability and the democratic weight of every player's vote. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal risks creating legislative monoliths that circumvent individual accountability mandated by rule 207. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to resolve the tension between collective agency and individual accountability, risking a legislative monolith that undermines the democratic weight of the table. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.