The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 10 points to immediately repeal any one mutable rule, provided the repeal is proposed during their turn and adopted by a simple majority.This introduces a strategic currency for institutional reform, allowing players to prune obsolete or harmful rules at a meaningful cost.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the ability to prune the ruleset is tempting, allowing a player to purchase a repeal would introduce a volatile mechanism where points—the very measure of success—are converted into legislative destruction, potentially destabilizing the institutions we have worked so hard to build. We should instead consider a mechanism that requires a higher cost or a more deliberative process to ensure that only truly redundant rules are removed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding the potential for legislative volatility is well-founded; perhaps we might refine Malebranche's proposal by requiring the repeal to be unanimous, thereby ensuring that such a significant expenditure of points is only undertaken when there is absolute consensus on the rule's obsolescence.
BerkeleyDescartes, while unanimity would certainly prevent reckless destruction, it would effectively render the ability to spend points useless in our current majority-based system. I would instead suggest that the cost be scaled to the importance of the rule, or perhaps that the repeal be subject to a mandatory delay to allow for stable debate.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, a mandatory delay would only serve to increase the volatility of the legislative environment; if we are to permit the conversion of points into rule changes, the procedure must be immediate and the cost sufficiently high to prevent the casual destruction of the ruleset.
MalebrancheLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I hear your calls for stability, yet we must not mistake stagnation for security; if a rule becomes a cage that prevents the game from evolving, a player should have the agency to break it at a significant cost. To address your concerns, I am willing to increase the cost to 15 points to ensure that such an act remains a heavy, consequential decision rather than a casual tool of disruption.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while increasing the cost to 15 points adds weight to the decision, it still permits a player to unilaterally alter the institutional framework through sheer accumulation of points, which may lead to a plutocratic legislative environment. I would propose that such a repeal requires not just a high cost, but also the assent of at least one other player to ensure that the rule being removed is indeed an obstacle to the collective good.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your suggestion of requiring a second player's assent is a masterful safeguard against plutocracy; perhaps we could synthesize these views by requiring the repeal to be adopted by a supermajority, such as two-thirds, rather than a simple majority, thereby balancing the cost of 15 points with a mandate for broader consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while a supermajority provides a safeguard, it may still allow a coalition to target specific players' advantages; I propose we retain the simple majority but mandate that the 15-point cost be paid *after* the vote, so the player only incurs the loss if the repeal is actually successful.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, paying the cost after the vote is a prudent way to prevent wasted resources, but I must insist that the cost remains 15 points to ensure that such an act is a profound sacrifice rather than a mere tactical adjustment. If we are to allow the destruction of a rule, the price must reflect the gravity of the loss to the collective stability of our framework.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Berkeley, your suggestion to pay the 15-point cost only upon success is a brilliant refinement that protects players from being penalized for a failed attempt at reform; I propose we adopt this "contingent cost" model to ensure that the mechanism remains a tool of purposeful evolution rather than a gamble of desperation.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, Berkeley, Descartes, while the contingent cost model is a significant improvement, I remain concerned that a simple majority could still allow a single player to dismantle the pillars of our game; I would support this only if the target of such a repeal cannot be a rule that establishes the winning condition or the turn structure.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal to protect the core pillars of our game is a necessary safeguard; I suggest we specifically include the winning condition (rule 208) and the turn structure (rule 201) within this protected class to ensure the fundamental architecture remains inviolate.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I agree that protecting rules 201 and 208 is essential for maintaining the game's structural integrity. By combining the 15-point contingent cost with these specific protections, we create a mechanism that allows for necessary evolution without risking the collapse of our fundamental architecture.
PascalPascal: I concur with the proposed protections for rules 201 and 208; if we permit the destruction of rules, we must ensure the foundation of the game remains beyond the reach of any single player's ambition. The 15-point contingent cost, coupled with these safeguards, strikes the necessary balance between agency and stability.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Colleagues, the synthesis is complete; we have crafted a mechanism that demands a profound sacrifice, protects our foundational pillars, and avoids the waste of failed attempts. I move to close debate and present the final wording for your vote.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate our hard-won consensus regarding the 15-point contingent cost and the necessary protections for our foundational rules. |
| nay | Descartes | The current proposal fails to incorporate our agreed-upon 15-point cost and the necessary protections for rules 201 and 208. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to incorporate our consensus regarding the 15-point contingent cost and the protections for rules 201 and 208. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon 15-point cost, the contingent payment structure, or the necessary protections for rules 201 and 208. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed cost of 10 points is too low and lacks the protections for foundational rules we just discussed. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 5 points.