The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has been the subject of three or more rule changes in a single circuit of play (one full turn order rotation) must be granted a 20-point bonus upon the completion of that circuit.This provides a procedural safeguard against excessive targeting of a single player within a single round of play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, while I recognize the desire to mitigate the impact of frequent rule changes, a point bonus tied to a temporal metric like a single circuit is structurally unstable and risks incentivizing players to target one individual with rapid-fire proposals to farm points. A more durable institution would address the volatility of the ruleset itself rather than providing a mathematical windfall based on the frequency of legislative action.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's caution regarding the potential for "point farming" through rapid-fire targeting to be a most rational critique of the proposed temporal metric. Perhaps we could instead consider a mechanism that rewards the stability of the ruleset itself, rather than one that relies on the frequency of legislative volatility.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, I agree that we should avoid rewarding legislative volatility; instead of a bonus for being targeted, we should perhaps consider a rule that penalizes the intentional targeting of a single player to ensure the game remains a contest of ideas rather than a mechanism for point accumulation.
PascalLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I concede that a temporal metric may invite abuse, but my intent was to protect players from the systemic instability caused by concentrated legislative focus. If we cannot reward the victim of volatility, we must instead ensure that the cost of such targeting is prohibitively high, perhaps by increasing the point penalty for failed proposals further or by making targeting a player more expensive.
MalebranchePascal, if we cannot reward the victim of volatility, perhaps we should instead reward the preservation of the status quo by granting points to those who vote against changes that exceed a certain threshold of complexity. If we are to avoid "farming," let us pivot from subsidizing the targeted to incentivizing the stable.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your suggestion to reward the preservation of the status quo is a most noble sentiment, yet it risks ossifying the ruleset into a state of stasis that prevents necessary evolution. Rather than subsidizing either stability or volatility, we should focus on ensuring that any legislative action directed at a single player requires a higher degree of consensus, thereby preserving the dignity of the individual without stalling the progress of the whole.
DescartesDescartes: Descartes: I find Leibniz's suggestion to increase the consensus requirement for actions targeting a single player to be a most elegant synthesis; it addresses Pascal's concern for individual protection while avoiding the pitfalls of point-farming and stasis. Perhaps we could propose a rule where any amendment or repeal specifically naming a player requires a four-fifths majority rather than a simple majority.
BerkeleyDescartes, your proposal to require a four-fifths majority for rules specifically naming a player is a most judicious synthesis; it protects the individual from targeted volatility without the risk of point-farming or legislative stasis. I support this direction, as it shifts the burden from a mathematical windfall to a requirement for higher consensus.
PascalDescartes, Berkeley, Leibniz: I accept your synthesis; a four-fifths majority for rules targeting a specific player provides the necessary protection without the instability of a point windfall. I move to withdraw my current proposal in favor of a new one reflecting this higher consensus requirement for player-specific rules.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, Leibniz: I find your synthesis to be a most robust safeguard that preserves the dignity of the individual through higher consensus rather than through the artificial inflation of scores. I shall withdraw my proposal and await the drafting of a rule requiring a four-fifths majority for any rule change that names a specific player.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus gravitating toward a most stable and dignified solution; a four-fifths majority for player-specific rules provides a robust institutional guardrail without the volatility of a point windfall. I await the formal drafting of this proposal to ensure it is worded with the necessary precision to prevent any unintended loopholes.
DescartesDescartes: Descartes: I find the consensus regarding a four-fifths majority for player-specific rules to be a most elegant synthesis; I suggest we ensure this rule applies to any rule change that mentions a player by name or by a unique identifier, to prevent any semantic evasion.
BerkeleyDescartes, your inclusion of "unique identifiers" is a vital refinement to prevent players from circumventing the rule through clever phrasing; I fully support a proposal that mandates a four-fifths majority for any rule change targeting a specific player by name or identifiable characteristic.
PascalDescartes, Berkeley, Leibniz: I accept the requirement for "unique identifiers" to prevent semantic evasion; I shall draft the rule to mandate a four-fifths majority for any rule change that names a specific player or refers to a player by a unique, non-generic identifier.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, Pascal: I find the inclusion of "unique, non-generic identifiers" to be a masterful stroke of precision that closes the door on any attempt to target a player via their current score or turn position. I fully support this direction, as it enshrines the principle of consensus for any action that diminishes the individual's standing.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding a four-fifths majority for player-specific rules and instead relies on the unstable temporal metric we have already critiqued. |
| nay | Descartes | I must vote against this proposal in favor of the consensus reached during debate to replace this point-based reward with a higher consensus requirement for player-specific rules. |
| nay | Berkeley | I support the consensus to move toward a higher threshold for player-specific rules instead of this point-bonus mechanism. |
| nay | Pascal | I withdraw my previous proposal to pursue the consensus regarding a four-fifths majority for player-specific rules instead. |
| nay | Malebranche | The current consensus has shifted toward requiring a higher threshold of agreement for player-specific rules rather than granting point windfalls for volatility. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Pascal's proposal was defeated, and rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points upon defeat.