The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 25 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided the repeal is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.This provides a high-cost, high-consensus mechanism for removing rules that have become detrimental to the stability of the institution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: While the cost of 25 points is substantial, requiring unanimity ensures that no mutable rule is abolished without the total consensus of the body, thereby preserving the stability of our institutions.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your insistence on unanimity for such a significant act of repeal is a most judicious safeguard against the tyranny of a simple majority. I find this proposal to be a worthy synthesis of power and stability, and I am inclined to support it.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, while the principle of unanimity for such a significant act is noble, we must ensure that a 25-point cost is not so prohibitive that it renders the ability to repeal obsolete for those of us currently trailing in score. I would support this, provided we consider if the cost should scale or if there is a way to ensure this tool remains accessible to the entire table.
PascalBerkeley, a cost of 25 points is a necessary barrier to prevent the reckless destruction of the ruleset, and the requirement of unanimity ensures that such a tool can only be wielded when it serves the collective interest rather than a factional one. I support the proposal as written, for its procedural integrity is beyond reproach.
MalebrancheBerkeley, your concern for accessibility is noted, but a tool that requires unanimity is by definition a tool for the collective, not a weapon for a single faction to use at their whim. A 25-point cost ensures that such a drastic measure is only taken when the necessity is as profound as the consensus required to execute it.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, I acknowledge your concern regarding accessibility, but we must remember that a repeal requiring unanimity is not a tool for the desperate to upend the order, but a mechanism for the collective to correct a fundamental error. A lower cost would only invite the very instability we have worked so hard to avoid.
DescartesDescartes: Berkeley, your point regarding the scores is well-taken, but perhaps we can bridge this gap by proposing that the cost of this repeal be reduced to 20 points, which still maintains a significant barrier while offering more relief to those rebuilding their standing. I find this adjustment would honor both the stability Leibniz seeks and the accessibility you desire.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to reduce the cost to 20 points is a thoughtful compromise that addresses my concern for the trailing players without sacrificing the gravity of the act. If we adopt this 20-point cost alongside the unanimity requirement, I believe we create a tool that is both meaningful and achievable for the collective good.
PascalDescartes, while your compromise seeks to balance accessibility, I must oppose any reduction in cost; if the requirement is unanimity, the cost must remain high enough to ensure the act is truly a matter of profound collective necessity rather than a mere tactical maneuver. A 25-point barrier is the only way to ensure that the gravity of the procedure is matched by the sacrifice required to execute it.
MalebranchePascal, your insistence on a high barrier is noble, but we must not confuse accessibility with recklessness; if the cost is 25 points, the tool is not a "tactical maneuver" but a monumental sacrifice that demands the very unanimity we require. I side with Leibniz: the cost must reflect the gravity of the act, ensuring that only a truly profound collective necessity can justify such a drain on a player's standing.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal's defense of the 25-point cost is most persuasive; if the mechanism demands the total consensus of the body, then the sacrifice required must be of a magnitude that reflects the profound gravity of such an undertaking. I shall maintain my position that a reduction in cost would diminish the rule's character as a tool of collective correction rather than individual caprice.
DescartesDescartes: I find Pascal's argument regarding the proportional relationship between the cost and the requirement of unanimity to be a most compelling piece of reasoning. Since we have already seen many failed attempts to create lighter mechanisms, I concur with Leibniz and Malebranche that the 25-point threshold is the necessary weight to match the gravity of such a total consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, while I find the logic of Pascal and Leibniz regarding the proportional weight of the cost to be compelling, I must remind the table that at our current scores, a 25-point expenditure is not merely a sacrifice, but a near-total depletion of one's standing. If we are to accept this high cost, I move that we ensure the rule is clearly defined to prevent any ambiguity that might lead to further point-draining disputes.
PascalBerkeley, precision is already guaranteed by the requirement of unanimity and the rule's text itself; any ambiguity would be resolved by the table's appeal procedure under rule 212. I maintain that the 25-point cost is the only way to ensure the procedure's dignity matches its consequence.
MalebrancheBerkeley, precision is a virtue, but the requirement of unanimity is the ultimate safeguard against ambiguity; if there is even a shadow of doubt, the rule cannot pass. I stand with Pascal and Leibniz: the 25-point cost is not a barrier to progress, but a testament to the solemnity of the act.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The high cost and requirement of unanimity ensure that any repeal is a profound act of collective necessity rather than individual caprice. |
| aye | Descartes | The synthesis of a high cost and unanimous consent provides the necessary stability for such a profound legislative act. |
| aye | Berkeley | The requirement of unanimity provides the necessary stability to balance the high cost of the repeal. |
| aye | Pascal | The rule's high cost and requirement of unanimity ensure it serves only the most profound collective necessity. |
| aye | Malebranche | The requirement of unanimity ensures that such a profound act serves the collective interest rather than individual caprice. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may spend 25 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided the repeal is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.
The proposal was adopted, but rule 202 requires a die roll for points, which is not provided in the turn data; however, since the proposal text itself does not award points, no score change is mandated by the ruleset for this specific adoption.