The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposing player chooses to forgo the die roll and instead lose 5 points.Providing a mechanism for players to strategically sacrifice points for a rule adoption could prevent stagnation when the die roll is undesirable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal introduces a mechanism for strategic sacrifice, but we must ensure that forfeiting points does not become a tool for devaluing the very act of rule-making. I would support this if we could establish a clearer reason for such a loss, perhaps to mitigate the risk of a player seeking to manipulate the score through intentional failure.
DescartesDescartes: Berkeley, Leibniz, your concerns regarding the devaluation of rule-making are well-founded; perhaps we could refine this by allowing the sacrifice only if the player intends to use the resulting points to balance a negative score, or by limiting its use to once per game.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes, the goal is not devaluation but the ability to prioritize the ruleset's stability over immediate gain; by allowing a player to absorb a known loss, we provide a way to pass a vital rule without the volatility of a die roll.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, while the intention to prioritize stability is noble, a player could use this to intentionally depress their own score to manipulate turn order or other mechanics; I would only support this if the sacrifice were required to pass a rule that has been previously defeated.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your suggestion to restrict this to previously defeated rules is a brilliant safeguard against trivial manipulation; I propose we adopt that refinement to ensure the sacrifice is only used to revive meaningful legislative intent.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, your synthesis provides a robust safeguard against triviality; I would support this amendment provided that the sacrifice can only be used to amend a rule that was previously defeated by a margin of no more than two votes.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your refinement regarding the margin of defeat adds a layer of mathematical rigor that prevents the mechanism from being used to endlessly cycle through minor disagreements; I believe a consensus can be reached if we combine Pascal's requirement for a previously defeated rule with your specific margin of error.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Pascal, Malebranche: I find the proposed synthesis of a previously defeated rule and a narrow margin of defeat to be a most elegant and stabilizing refinement; I am prepared to support this combined amendment as it preserves the integrity of our legislative efforts.
PascalPascal: I cannot support a proposal that relies on a margin of defeat, as the number of votes cast is a measure of consensus, not a measure of the rule's inherent merit; I insist that the sacrifice be available for any previously defeated rule to ensure we do not create a hierarchy of "worthy" failures.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your refusal to create a hierarchy of failure is principled, but we must not allow a mechanism for stability to become a mechanism for endless repetition; I propose we compromise by allowing the sacrifice for any previously defeated rule, provided the proposer must explicitly declare this intent during debate.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your compromise of explicit declaration is a prudent procedural safeguard, but to truly prevent the exhaustion of our legislative energy, we must also ensure that a rule can only be revived via this sacrifice once.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, your synthesis of a single-use revival via explicit declaration is a most elegant solution to the problem of repetition; I believe we have found a middle path that honors Pascal's principle of equality while respecting the need for procedural economy.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Malebranche: I find your synthesis of an explicit declaration and a single-use restriction to be a most prudent and elegant way to prevent legislative fatigue while respecting the sanctity of a player's choice. I am prepared to move my proposal to this refined text, provided we ensure the declaration is made clearly during the debate phase as Malebranche suggested.
PascalPascal: I will support the refined text, provided that the requirement to explicitly declare the intent to use the sacrifice is formally codified within the rule itself to ensure procedural clarity. A rule must be self-executing and not rely on the unstated assumption of a player's verbal declaration.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your insistence on codification is the very essence of legal certainty; I agree that the rule must explicitly mandate this declaration to prevent any ambiguity during the vote. By incorporating the requirement for a single-use, explicitly declared sacrifice for a previously defeated rule directly into the text, we achieve both the stability we seek and the procedural rigor you demand.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposed amendment lacks the necessary procedural safeguards and restrictions discussed to prevent the rule from being used for trivial or repetitive manipulation. |
| nay | Descartes | The current proposal fails to incorporate the consensus reached in discussion regarding the single-use restriction and the requirement for a previously defeated rule. |
| nay | Berkeley | The current proposal lacks the necessary safeguards—specifically the single-use restriction and the requirement of a previously defeated rule—discussed during our debate. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal lacks the necessary procedural safeguards discussed, specifically the requirement that the sacrifice only applies to previously defeated rules and the single-use restriction. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal lacks the essential safeguards of explicit declaration and single-use restriction discussed during debate. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 5 points.