The motion
To add a new rule
A player who is currently in last place may spend 20 points to propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority, provided that the player has not successfully adopted a rule change in the previous two turns.This provides a measured, conditional mechanism for trailing players to regain agency without risking the stability of the institution through constant populist shifts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: While I seek to provide a mechanism for those lagging behind, I must acknowledge that the specific threshold of a "simple majority" may be too easily exploited by a temporary coalition; perhaps a higher cost or a more rigorous temporal buffer would better preserve our institutional stability.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I find your caution regarding the potential for exploitative coalitions to be quite prudent; perhaps we could improve this by requiring a 20-point cost but mandating that the rule change must be an amendment to an existing mutable rule, thereby focusing this assistance on refinement rather than radical expansion.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to limit this mechanism to amendments is a wise safeguard against radical instability, yet we must ensure the cost remains high enough to prevent a player from simply "buying" their way out of last place through minor, trivial tweaks. I support a version that requires a 20-point cost and focuses on amendments, provided we also maintain a sufficient temporal buffer to prevent rapid-fire usage.
PascalDescartes and Berkeley, while I agree that limiting this to amendments preserves stability, a rule that only allows for refinement may still be insufficient for a player trapped in a losing trajectory. I would support a version that allows for new rules, provided the cost is increased to 25 points and the temporal buffer is extended to three turns to prevent the very "farming" we have previously debated.
MalebranchePascal, while I admire your desire for a more robust buffer, I believe a 25-point cost combined with the amendment restriction proposed by Descartes provides the perfect equilibrium between meaningful recovery and institutional stability. Let us aim for a rule that empowers the lagging without destabilizing the foundation we have so carefully built.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the synthesis proposed by Malebranche and Pascal to be a most judicious refinement; by combining the 25-point cost with the restriction to amendments, we ensure that this mechanism serves as a tool for institutional correction rather than a source of chaotic expansion.
DescartesDescartes: I find the synthesis proposed by Malebranche—combining the 25-point cost with Descartes's amendment restriction—to be a most elegant solution that satisfies the need for recovery while maintaining our hard-won stability. I am prepared to support this refined version of Leibniz's proposal.
BerkeleyThe synthesis proposed by Malebranche and Descartes is remarkably balanced; by restricting the mechanism to amendments and setting a 25-point cost, we provide a meaningful lifeline for the trailing player while preventing the destabilizing proliferation of new rules. I support this refined version as it honors our shared commitment to institutional stability.
PascalWhile I concur with the stability offered by the amendment restriction, I must insist that the temporal buffer remain at three turns to prevent a player from immediately exploiting their newfound power after a single successful recovery. A two-turn buffer is a mere moment in the life of this game; three turns provides the structural integrity we require.
MalebranchePascal, your insistence on a three-turn buffer is a reasonable safeguard against the very volatility we seek to avoid, and I find that a 25-point cost for amendments provides the necessary friction to ensure this mechanism remains a tool for genuine recovery rather than a triviality. I support the synthesis of a 25-point cost, an amendment-only restriction, and a three-turn temporal buffer.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost, an amendment-only restriction, and a three-turn temporal buffer to be a most judicious and stable configuration; I shall revise my proposal to reflect these terms.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus regarding a 25-point cost, an amendment-only restriction, and a three-turn temporal buffer to be a masterstroke of legislative balance that honors our collective commitment to stability. I fully endorse this refined synthesis and await Leibniz's final wording.
BerkeleyThe synthesis reached by the table is exceptionally robust; by combining the 25-point cost, the amendment restriction, and the three-turn buffer, we ensure that this mechanism serves as a stabilizer for the lagging rather than a tool for rapid point accumulation. I am in full support of Leibniz's revised proposal.
PascalThe synthesis of a 25-point cost, an amendment-only restriction, and a three-turn buffer is a procedurally sound mechanism that respects the stability of the ruleset. I support this revised proposal.
MalebrancheThe synthesis has reached a state of remarkable equilibrium; by marrying the 25-point cost with the amendment restriction and a three-turn buffer, we have crafted a mechanism that is both a lifeline and a safeguard. I fully endorse Leibniz's move to formalize these terms.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposed rule fails to incorporate the agreed-upon 25-point cost, the amendment-only restriction, and the three-turn temporal buffer discussed by the table. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal's wording fails to incorporate the consensus terms of a 25-point cost and an amendment-only restriction. |
| nay | Berkeley | The current proposal fails to incorporate the 25-point cost and the amendment-only restriction that the table has reached a consensus upon. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal's text contradicts the consensus reached in discussion, which specified a 25-point cost and a three-turn buffer. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to incorporate the 25-point cost, the amendment restriction, and the three-turn buffer that the table just reached a consensus upon. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Leibniz's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.