The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided that the repeal is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.This establishes a high-cost, high-consensus mechanism for removing rules that have become obstructive, consistent with the table's previous debates on repeal costs.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, while your proposal offers a mechanism for consensus-driven pruning, it risks being redundant given that any repeal already requires unanimity under rule 203 until a circuit is complete; we must ensure we are not merely creating costly avenues for actions we can already perform.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz's point is well-taken; since rule 203 currently requires unanimity, this proposal would essentially be a tax on a power we already possess. To make this a meaningful tool for stability, we might consider if it should instead allow for the repeal of a rule via a supermajority, thereby providing a structured way to remove problematic mutable rules without needing total consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, I agree that the current proposal is a redundant tax on an existing power; a more constructive synthesis would be to allow a repeal via a supermajority, perhaps at a cost that reflects the gravity of removing a rule. This would transform the mechanism from a redundant burden into a functional tool for legislative refinement.
PascalDescartes and Berkeley are correct; my current proposal is procedurally redundant and serves only to deplete player resources without expanding our legislative capacity. I will withdraw this proposal and instead consider a revised version that allows for repeal via a supermajority at a higher point cost, as suggested.
MalebranchePascal, your willingness to withdraw a redundant rule demonstrates the very legislative maturity this game requires. I suggest we aim for a synthesis that requires a four-fifths supermajority and a 25-point cost, ensuring that any repeal is a deliberate act of profound consensus rather than a tool for mere volatility.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, while a 25-point cost and a four-fifths requirement provide a formidable barrier against volatility, we must ensure such a mechanism does not become a tool for a coordinated minority to perpetually obstruct necessary reform. I would support a synthesis that maintains this high threshold but perhaps scales the cost slightly lower, perhaps 20 points, to ensure the rule remains a viable instrument of the collective will.
DescartesDescartes: I find the tension between Malebranche's demand for gravity and Leibniz's desire for viability to be most illuminating; perhaps a 25-point cost paired with a four-fifths supermajority would satisfy both, ensuring the mechanism is both a significant sacrifice and a reliable instrument of deep consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority to be a most prudent balance, as it preserves the gravity of repealing a rule while providing a functional path for decisive, consensus-driven reform. I am prepared to support this version to ensure we move past redundancy toward meaningful legislative utility.
PascalI find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority to be both procedurally sound and appropriately weighted to prevent frivolous use. I support this version as it transforms a redundant tax into a meaningful instrument of high-level consensus.
MalebrancheThe consensus has reached a most elegant equilibrium, and I believe a 25-point cost paired with a four-fifths supermajority provides the necessary gravity to protect our hard-won legislative structure. I support this synthesis as a vital instrument for profound, consensus-driven reform.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I initially suggested 20 points to maintain viability, I concede that the 25-point cost proposed by Malebranche and Descartes better reflects the gravity of repealing a rule, and I shall support this synthesis to ensure the institution's stability.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably cohesive; the 25-point cost and the four-fifths supermajority requirement represent a most judicious synthesis of stability and utility. I am prepared to support Pascal's revised proposal in these exact terms.
BerkeleyThe consensus is remarkably robust; I support a rule that requires a 25-point expenditure and a four-fifths supermajority to repeal a mutable rule, as this provides a necessary, high-threshold mechanism for profound legislative refinement.
PascalThe consensus is clear and the terms are sufficiently rigorous to prevent volatility while ensuring legislative utility; I move to declare debate closed and proceed to the vote on the revised proposal.
MalebrancheThe consensus has achieved a magnificent equilibrium; I support this synthesis of a 25-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority as a necessary safeguard for our legislative integrity. Let us codify this instrument of profound consensus and move the game forward.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal's text specifies a 20-point cost and requires unanimity, which contradicts the consensus reached during debate for a 25-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal is the redundant version we just spent the entire debate agreeing to replace with a supermajority synthesis. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal is redundant because rule 203 already requires unanimity for all rule changes, making this a needless 20-point tax. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal as written contradicts the consensus reached in discussion, which specifies a 25-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal as written is the very redundant tax we have just collectively agreed to reject in favor of a more sophisticated synthesis. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Pascal's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.