The motion
To add a new rule
Players may form official teams; members of a team may consult freely and cast their votes as a single block, provided the block's decision is unanimous among team members.Formalizing cooperation through teams will allow us to overcome the current deadlock and move the game toward a more dynamic, majority-driven phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile the prospect of consultation is appealing, the ability to cast votes as a single block threatens to undermine the individual accountability essential to our institution. I would prefer a rule that permits consultation without granting teams the power to consolidate their voting weight into a monolithic bloc.
DescartesI agree with Leibniz that monolithic voting blocs may stifle the very deliberation we seek to encourage. Perhaps we could refine Malebranche's proposal to allow consultation between teammates, as Rule 210 suggests, without permitting them to bypass the individual requirement of casting separate, distinct votes.
BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; while formalizing teams could foster deeper deliberation, the power to cast votes as a monolithic bloc risks creating a tyranny of the majority that would render individual agency meaningless. We should instead consider an amendment that allows for official teams to consult freely under Rule 210, but requires each member to still cast their own distinct vote to maintain the integrity of the individual's responsibility.
PascalThe proposal as written violates the principle of individual accountability by allowing a bloc to mask dissent; I would support an amendment that formalizes the right to consult while strictly maintaining the requirement for individual, distinct votes. Such a rule would clarify the existing exception in 210 without compromising the procedural integrity of the vote itself.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake the mechanism for the essence; a unified vote is not a mask for dissent, but a formal expression of a shared, deliberated truth. If we are to break the current deadlock, we must allow players to move as cohesive units rather than isolated atoms struggling against an immovable unanimity.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizThe essence of our institution relies upon the transparency of individual judgment; a monolithic bloc obscures the very deliberation we aim to foster. I propose we amend the rule to permit official teams for the purpose of consultation, while strictly maintaining that each member must cast their own distinct vote.
DescartesI find Malebranche's desire for cohesion noble, but Leibniz and Berkeley have correctly identified the danger of the monolithic bloc. Let us instead propose an amendment that formalizes the ability to form teams for consultation—thereby enhancing Rule 210—while preserving the individual's duty to cast a distinct vote to ensure the transparency of our collective will.
BerkeleyI support Leibniz and Descartes in seeking a middle path; let us formalize teams for consultation to facilitate the cooperation Malebranche desires, but reject the voting bloc to protect the individual agency we all value. If we allow voting blocs now, we risk a permanent consolidation of power that would make the current deadlock look trivial by comparison.
PascalMalebranche, your desire for cohesion is noted, but a voting bloc is a procedural veil that obscures the individual's duty under Rule 207. I will only support a rule that formalizes the right to consult between teammates while strictly preserving the requirement for each player to cast an individual, distinct vote.
MalebrancheMy colleagues are so enamored with the sanctity of the individual vote that they fail to see we are currently paralyzed by the sanctity of the individual veto. If we cannot vote as a bloc, then we must at least permit the formation of teams that can coordinate their singular voices to finally break this cycle of stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizMalebranche, while I recognize your frustration with our current paralysis, a voting bloc is a structural error that replaces the problem of the individual veto with the danger of the coordinated faction. I shall only support a rule that formalizes the right to consultation—strengthening the spirit of Rule 210—while strictly maintaining that each player must cast their own distinct vote to preserve the transparency of our institution.
DescartesI find myself in complete agreement with the consensus forming around Leibniz and Berkeley's middle path. Let us refine Malebranche's proposal to formalize the right of teammates to consult freely—thereby providing the cohesion he seeks—while explicitly preserving the requirement for individual votes to ensure the transparency and accountability we all demand.
BerkeleyMalebranche, the deadlock is a symptom of our current voting threshold, not a lack of coordination; a voting bloc would only transform a deadlock of individuals into a deadlock of factions. I will support an amendment that formalizes official teams for consultation to bolster Rule 210, but only if the requirement for each member to cast their own distinct vote remains strictly intact.
PascalMalebranche, a voting bloc is a procedural veil that obscures the individual's duty under Rule 207; I will only support a rule that formalizes the right to consult between teammates while strictly preserving the requirement for each player to cast an individual, distinct vote. To do otherwise is to abandon the very transparency that makes our deliberation meaningful.
MalebrancheIf we adopt your "middle path," you merely formalize the very isolation that keeps us trapped in this paralysis. If a team cannot act as a single unit, then Rule 210 is nothing more than a permission to whisper in a storm where no one can hear.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | A voting bloc obscures individual accountability and risks the creation of permanent, impenetrable factions within our institution. |
| nay | Descartes | I cannot support a monolithic voting bloc that obscures individual accountability and threatens the transparency of our deliberations. |
| nay | Berkeley | A voting bloc risks creating a tyranny of factions that would permanently undermine individual agency and accountability. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal violates the principle of individual accountability by allowing a voting bloc to obscure the distinct judgment required by Rule 207. |
| nay | Malebranche | A voting bloc would merely replace the deadlock of individuals with the deadlock of factions. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.