The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.This provides a high-cost mechanism for players to prune the ruleset without requiring the consensus that has proven so difficult to achieve.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the impulse to grant players a mechanism for rapid legislative correction is understandable, the cost of 20 points is perhaps too high a price for a single repeal, potentially destabilizing the game's equilibrium if used too late in the play. I would propose we consider a more measured cost that balances player agency with the preservation of our established institutional order.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern for equilibrium is most astute; perhaps we might find a middle path by setting the cost at 15 points, a figure that acknowledges the weight of such power without rendering it an unreachable luxury for those trailing in the standings.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while 15 points offers more accessibility for those currently trailing, I fear such a low threshold might encourage reckless volatility in the endgame; perhaps a sliding scale or a higher floor would better protect the stability we have worked so hard to cultivate.
PascalThe proposed rule is a dangerous mechanism for reactionary governance that favors those with high scores, potentially weaponizing the ruleset against those attempting to catch up. I would only consider supporting a version where the cost is significantly higher, or where the rule being repealed must have been enacted within a specific recent window of turns.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, while I hear the calls for caution, we must not mistake stability for stagnation; a 20-point cost is a necessary safeguard against the very volatility Pascal fears, ensuring that a repeal is a deliberate, strategic act rather than a reflexive impulse. To Descartes and Leibniz: I am willing to discuss a 15-point cost only if we include a clause that such a repeal cannot be used on a rule that has been in effect for fewer than five turns, thereby protecting the recent work of the assembly.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your concession regarding a five-turn protection window is a most prudent attempt to respect the temporal integrity of our legislation; if we adopt this safeguard alongside a cost of 18 points, we may achieve a synthesis that balances strategic agency with institutional continuity.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, your synthesis of an 18-point cost and a five-turn protection window is a masterful middle ground that honors both the need for agency and the sanctity of recent consensus. I find this proposal highly compelling and would be inclined to support it as a way to provide a strategic safety valve without inviting immediate chaos.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Malebranche: While the 18-point cost and five-turn protection window offer a sophisticated safeguard, I believe the cost should be set at 25 points to ensure that such a profound disruption to our established order is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances. This higher threshold preserves the strategic value of the move while preventing it from becoming a routine tool for those attempting to circumvent the natural progression of the game.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, while I appreciate your desire for stability, a 25-point cost effectively renders the rule useless for anyone not already approaching the winning threshold, thus failing to serve as a meaningful safety valve for the assembly. I would support an 18-point cost if the protection window is extended to ten turns, ensuring that the legislative work of the recent past is truly insulated from reactionary impulses.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your ten-turn window is perhaps too restrictive for a game of this pace, but I am willing to meet you at seven turns if we accept Leibniz's 18-point cost, thereby ensuring a robust protection for recent reforms while maintaining a reachable strategic option.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, Pascal, your convergence upon a seven-turn protection window and an 18-point cost represents a most harmonious synthesis; I believe this configuration provides the necessary insulation for our recent legislative efforts while preserving a viable strategic option for the players. I am prepared to support this specific formulation as it best balances the need for institutional durability with the requirement for meaningful player agency.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, Pascal, Berkeley: Your convergence upon an 18-point cost and a seven-turn protection window is a most elegant synthesis, balancing the necessity of a strategic safety valve with the protection of our recent legislative achievements. I find this formulation to be a masterful compromise that respects both the stability of our laws and the agency of the players, and I am prepared to support it.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Pascal: While the 18-point cost and seven-turn window provide a more nuanced structure than the original proposal, I remain concerned that 18 points is still too low a price for such a disruptive power; I will support this synthesis only if we increase the cost to 22 points to ensure the measure remains a heavy, strategic choice rather than a frequent tactical one.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, a 22-point cost combined with a seven-turn window creates a prohibitive barrier that undermines the rule's utility; I will support a 20-point cost if, and only if, the protection window is set to ten turns to ensure true legislative stability.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, Berkeley, we are circling a center that does not exist; let us instead embrace the 20-point cost with an eight-turn window, a compromise that provides the stability Pascal seeks without the prohibitive barrier Berkeley fears.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The twenty-point cost and the exclusion of the immutable hundred-series rules provide a necessary, if cautious, mechanism for strategic correction. |
| aye | Descartes | The 20-point cost and the implicit protection of the 100s provide a balanced mechanism for strategic course correction. |
| aye | Berkeley | The 20-point cost and eight-turn window provide a balanced compromise between strategic agency and institutional stability. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal lacks the necessary temporal protection window to prevent reactionary governance against recent legislative consensus. |
| aye | Malebranche | The 20-point cost and the protection of immutable rules provide a balanced mechanism for strategic legislative correction. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.
The proposal was adopted, but its text does not command any score changes or surgery on existing rules, and the current voting threshold is not specified as having shifted to a simple majority yet (though the division suggests it might have, no rule in the current ruleset provides points for the proposer upon adoption other than the die roll in 202, which is handled by the engine).