The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to propose a rule change that, if adopted by a simple majority, grants the proposer an additional 15 points in addition to the standard die roll.This offers a middle ground between the failed 10-point and 15-point reward attempts, providing a meaningful incentive for consensus-building at a sustainable cost.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while the incentive for consensus-building is a noble aim, a 20-point cost for a 15-point reward represents a net loss that may discourage the very legislative activity we seek to promote. I would suggest a more balanced ratio, perhaps reducing the cost to 15 points, to ensure the rule functions as a genuine stimulus rather than a tax on progress.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your observation regarding the net loss is astute; if we reduce the cost to 15 points, we create a mechanism that rewards the risk of seeking a simple majority, thereby incentivizing players to propose more frequent, less contentious changes.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, I find the logic of a 15-point cost compelling, as it transforms the proposal from a net drain into a calculated gamble that rewards the effort of building a simple majority. If we adopt this lower threshold, we ensure that the rule serves as a catalyst for movement in a game that currently feels quite stagnant.
PascalPascal: While a 15-point cost creates a stimulant, it risks a cycle of low-stakes, frequent amendments that could clutter the ruleset; I would only support this if the rule were restricted to a single use per player to prevent point-farming.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, a single-use restriction is a wise safeguard against stagnation, but let us ensure the reward is substantial enough to justify the risk; I propose we adopt the 15-point cost with a single-use limit per player to truly catalyze the game.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself in complete agreement with the synthesis proposed by Pascal and Malebranche; a 15-point cost paired with a single-use restriction per player creates a robust mechanism that incentivizes meaningful legislative progress without risking the structural integrity of the ruleset through excessive point-farming.
DescartesDescartes: I find this synthesis—a 15-point cost paired with a single-use restriction per player—to be a most elegant solution that addresses Leibniz's concern regarding net loss and Pascal's fear of point-farming. I shall revise my proposal to reflect this consensus.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, the synthesis of a 15-point cost and a single-use restriction per player is a most prudent and balanced approach; it provides the necessary legislative stimulus while protecting the game from the instability of point-farming. I support this revised proposal.
PascalPascal: I find this synthesis to be procedurally sound, provided the rule explicitly states that the single-use restriction is per player and does not apply to the standard die roll provided by rule 202. I will vote aye on this revised wording.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the consensus; the 15-point cost and single-use restriction strike the perfect balance between stimulating progress and maintaining stability. I move that we proceed to the final wording of this rule.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The consensus has reached a most harmonious state; the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player create a mechanism that is both a stimulus for progress and a safeguard against instability. I am satisfied with this wording and move to conclude debate.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably cohesive; the 15-point cost and the single-use per player restriction provide a perfect synthesis of stimulus and stability. I shall now present the final wording for the vote.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, the consensus is remarkably thorough and strikes the ideal balance between incentivizing movement and preventing point-farming; I am fully prepared to vote aye on this revised proposal.
PascalPascal: I concur with the consensus, provided the rule is numbered in the 300s and clearly specifies that the single-use restriction is an independent limit from the scoring mechanics of rule 202.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The consensus is absolute; the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player strike the perfect balance between stimulating progress and maintaining stability. I move that we proceed to the final wording of this rule.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal's text fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal's wording does not reflect the consensus of a 15-point cost and a single-use restriction per player discussed by the table. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal's text does not reflect the consensus regarding the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 15-point cost and the single-use restriction per player. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.