The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 30 points to immediately gain the status of 'Official Teammate' with any other player for the remainder of the game.This introduces a new strategic currency and mechanism for cooperation, facilitating the specialized consultation allowed by rule 210.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the prospect of formal cooperation is tempting, a rule that permits the purchase of alliances risks turning our pursuit of legislative stability into a mere auction of influence. I would suggest we instead consider if such partnerships could be achieved through more organic, non-monetary means, preserved by our existing rules on discussion.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding the commodification of influence is well-founded; perhaps we could refine Malebranche's vision by making such a status a mutual agreement that requires both players' consent, rather than a unilateral purchase.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I agree that a unilateral purchase of alliance threatens the integrity of our individual agency; if we are to formalize cooperation, it must be a mutual pact rather than a transaction. Perhaps we should consider a rule where players may form a temporary partnership through a shared vote, rather than a permanent, paid status.
PascalThe proposal, as written, lacks the procedural rigor of mutual consent and risks creating a permanent, non-revocable power bloc that undermines the competitive balance of the game. I would only support a rule where such a status is established through a mutual, voluntary agreement between players that does not require a point expenditure to bypass the agency of the partner.
MalebrancheMy colleagues, while I hear your concerns regarding unilateralism, you mistake a mechanism for a mandate: the rule provides the *option* to propose a pact, not the power to force one upon a reluctant partner. To address your desire for agency, I will refine the wording to require mutual consent, but I maintain that a point cost is necessary to prevent the game from devolving into a chaotic web of free, ephemeral promises.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while your refinement towards mutual consent addresses the concern of agency, I remain wary of any rule that formalizes the purchase of a permanent status; if we are to permit cooperation, let it be a matter of shared interest and strategic alignment rather than a permanent, paid transaction that may stifle the natural evolution of our legislative community.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, your synthesis of mutual consent and a point-based barrier is a most elegant way to prevent the proliferation of frivolous alliances while respecting individual agency. I would propose we refine this further by setting the cost at 25 points and making the status revocable only through a rule change, thereby balancing stability with the organic evolution of our strategic landscape.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Malebranche: While a 25-point cost for a permanent, revocable status offers a middle path, I worry that making such an alliance irrevocable except by rule change creates a rigid power bloc that could paralyze the legislative process. I propose we instead consider a rule where players may form a partnership for a fixed duration—perhaps three turns—at a moderate cost, allowing for strategic cooperation without permanently skewing the competitive balance.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley, your suggestions of irrevocability and fixed duration both introduce unpredictable variables into the procedural landscape; I would only support a rule where the status is established through mutual, voluntary agreement with a cost that prevents triviality, but remains revocable by the players involved at any time.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, the essence of my reform is to provide a stable mechanism for cooperation in a game that currently lacks a formal way to link interests. I accept the refinement of mutual consent and will adopt Descartes's suggestion of a 25-point cost, as this provides a meaningful barrier to entry while ensuring that any partnership is a deliberate, shared strategic commitment.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal: While I appreciate the convergence upon mutual consent and a 25-point cost, I remain concerned that making a partnership permanent or even semi-permanent risks creating institutional ossification; perhaps we should instead mandate that any such alliance be revocable by the partner at any time, without cost, to preserve the ultimate sovereignty of the individual player.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, Berkeley, Pascal: Your collective wisdom has refined this proposal into a most sophisticated instrument; I propose we adopt the 25-point cost for mutual consent, but allow either partner to dissolve the alliance at any time by spending 15 points, thus ensuring that while cooperation is deliberate, no player is ever held hostage by a past commitment.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Malebranche: I find the proposal for a 25-point mutual alliance with a 15-point dissolution cost to be a most balanced synthesis, as it provides a meaningful cost for commitment while preserving the necessary agency for players to escape a partnership that no longer serves the common good.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley, and Leibniz, while I find the dissolution cost of 15 points to be a sound procedural safeguard for individual sovereignty, I must insist that the initial alliance also be established through mutual consent to prevent the unilateral purchase of a partner's agency. I will support the proposal provided the wording explicitly requires the consent of both players for the status to be enacted.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, we have arrived at a most harmonious synthesis: a 25-point cost for a mutually consented alliance, with a 15-point provision for its dissolution to preserve individual sovereignty. I shall now formalize this wording for the vote.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written lacks the mutual consent required to protect individual agency and risks institutional ossification. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposed rule fails to incorporate our hard-won consensus regarding mutual consent and the 15-point dissolution cost. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposed rule contradicts the consensus reached in discussion by allowing a unilateral purchase rather than requiring mutual consent. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal as stated allows for unilateral acquisition of a teammate, which violates the principle of mutual consent required for such a status. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed rule contradicts the recent consensus that alliances must be established through mutual consent rather than a unilateral purchase. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the next player in turn order is Leibniz.