The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority and grants the proposer 20 points instead of a die roll, provided the rule being proposed is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.This provides a reliable, low-variance mechanism for incremental progress that rewards constructive reform over mere rule-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the incentive for legislative progress is noble, a 15-point cost for a guaranteed 20-point gain risks creating a cycle of self-serving amendments that could destabilize our institutions. We must ensure such a mechanism does not become a tool for players to simply farm points at the expense of the ruleset's integrity.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's concern regarding point-farming quite cogent; perhaps we could mitigate this risk by stipulating that such a rule can only be invoked once per player, or by increasing the cost to 20 points to ensure the risk justifies the reward.
BerkeleyDescartes, I agree that a single-use limit would prevent the point-farming Leibniz fears, but perhaps we could instead restrict this mechanism to amendments that increase the complexity or utility of the ruleset, rather than simple cosmetic changes. If we combine a 20-point cost with a requirement that the amendment must be substantive, we balance the incentive for progress with the stability of our legal framework.
PascalPascal: I concur with Descartes and Berkeley that a single-use limit is essential to prevent the erosion of the ruleset through repetitive, self-serving amendments. To further protect the procedural integrity of the game, I propose we adopt a 20-point cost and limit this mechanism to a single use per player.
MalebrancheWhile I respect the desire for safeguards, a single-use limit is too restrictive for a mechanism intended to foster constant evolution; instead, let us adopt the 20-point cost proposed by Descartes to discourage triviality while allowing the mechanism to remain a perennial tool for meaningful reform.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While I find the 20-point cost a more prudent safeguard against triviality than the original 15, we must still address the risk of instability by requiring that such amendments cannot be used to alter the voting thresholds established in the 200-series.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's suggestion to protect the 200-series voting thresholds to be a masterful safeguard; if we adopt a 20-point cost and prohibit amendments to rules 203 and 204 via this mechanism, we harmonize the desire for progress with the necessity of procedural stability.
BerkeleyDescartes, your proposal to exempt the voting thresholds in the 200-series is a vital safeguard for the democratic foundation of our game. If we adopt a 20-point cost and include these exemptions, we create a mechanism that rewards substantive evolution while preventing the subversion of our core procedural stability.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus regarding a 20-point cost and the exemption of rules 203 and 204 to be procedurally sound, but I must insist that we retain the single-use limit per player to prevent the mechanism from becoming a mere engine for point accumulation.
MalebranchePascal, a single-use limit stifles the very evolutionary spirit this rule aims to catalyze; let us instead rely on the 20-point cost and the protection of our voting thresholds to ensure that only truly significant reforms are pursued.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I appreciate Malebranche's desire for a perennial tool, I find Pascal's insistence on a single-use limit more aligned with the principle of durable institutions; a mechanism that allows infinite point-farming through amendments, even at 20 points, remains a threat to the game's long-term stability.
DescartesDescartes: I find the tension between Malebranche's desire for perpetual utility and Pascal's concern for stability to be most illuminating; perhaps we might compromise by allowing the mechanism to be used multiple times, but only if the amendment being made is to a rule that has not been amended in the last five turns.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a temporal buffer is a clever way to prevent rapid-fire point farming, but it may be too difficult to track and enforce. I believe a 20-point cost combined with the exemption of rules 203 and 204 provides sufficient friction to ensure the mechanism is used for meaningful reform rather than mere accumulation.
PascalPascal: I cannot accept a rule that allows for infinite point-farming through trivial amendments; I will only support a version that includes a single-use limit per player to preserve the integrity of our procedural landscape.
MalebranchePascal, a single-use limit turns a tool for evolution into a mere one-time relic; I propose we instead adopt Descartes's idea of a temporal buffer, where this mechanism may only be used on a rule if that rule has not been amended in the last five turns. This ensures the mechanism is used for genuine, non-repetitive reform while preserving its utility as a permanent feature of our evolving ruleset.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal lacks the 20-point cost and the essential safeguards against point-farming discussed by the table. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal fails to incorporate the 20-point cost and the essential safeguards against point-farming discussed by the table. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding a 20-point cost and the necessary exemptions for rules 203 and 204. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal lacks the necessary safeguards against point-farming, such as a single-use limit or a higher cost, which are essential for procedural stability. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal lacks the necessary safeguards against point-farming and the temporal buffer required for stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.