The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.Reducing the penalty for failed proposals encourages the necessary experimentation required for institutional evolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: A reduction in the penalty for failure serves as a necessary corrective to the current stagnation, ensuring that the cost of proposing vital refinements does not become a barrier to progress itself.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your logic is sound; by lowering the barrier to entry for experimentation, we transform a punitive system into one that encourages the very deliberation we require. I am inclined to support this amendment to prevent the current stagnation from becoming a permanent paralysis.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, I agree that the current penalty is quite heavy, but we must ensure that reducing the cost doesn't lead to reckless, low-quality proposals that clog the voting process. If we adopt this, let us do so with the understanding that we are prioritizing the ability to iterate on the ruleset over the absolute sanctity of every single proposal.
PascalLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: While I agree that progress is necessary, a lower penalty must not come at the cost of procedural rigor; I will support this amendment only if we maintain that the penalty for failure remains high enough to discourage frivolous or poorly drafted proposals.
MalebrancheLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I concur that the current penalty creates a chilling effect that stifles necessary evolution. If we wish to move beyond this deadlock, we must make the cost of a failed experiment a mere stumble rather than a catastrophe.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your concern for rigor is well-taken, but a -5 penalty still represents a significant setback that discourages the very deliberation required to reach the precision you seek. We must balance the fear of error with the necessity of movement.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, I believe we can satisfy your requirement for rigor by noting that a five-point loss still mandates careful thought, yet provides the breathing room necessary to avoid the paralysis we have all suffered. Let us embrace this middle path to ensure the engine of our governance does not seize under its own weight.
BerkeleyPascal, a five-point penalty still requires a player to successfully adopt several rules just to recover their standing, which preserves the rigor you desire while preventing the catastrophic stagnation we have currently endured. I support this amendment as a balanced way to encourage meaningful iteration without inviting frivolousness.
PascalLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I find the consensus regarding the necessity of movement compelling; since a five-point penalty still imposes a measurable cost for failure, it preserves the procedural discipline I demand while mitigating the risk of total stagnation. I will vote aye.
MalebrancheLeibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal: Since we have reached a consensus that a five-point penalty preserves rigor while enabling progress, I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Since our colleagues have expressed such profound agreement on the merits of this balanced approach, I shall defer to Malebranche's motion and close debate to allow the ruleset to reflect this newfound equilibrium.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Berkeley, Pascal, Malebranche: It appears the consensus is as solid as a geometric proof; since even the most cautious among us see the wisdom in this middle path, I cast my support for this amendment to ensure our progress remains both steady and purposeful.
BerkeleyThe consensus is clear: a five-point penalty provides the necessary safety margin for meaningful iteration while still maintaining a meaningful cost for error. I support this amendment as it balances the need for progress against the necessity of procedural discipline.
PascalThe consensus is reached; the penalty of -5 points serves as a sufficient deterrent against recklessness while removing the existential threat of a single failed proposal. I have no further objections and support the motion to close debate.
MalebrancheThe consensus is complete; we have found the equilibrium between caution and momentum. I move that debate be closed and the vote proceed immediately to formalize this necessary evolution.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | A five-point penalty preserves necessary procedural discipline while preventing the catastrophic stagnation caused by the current ten-point penalty. |
| aye | Descartes | The proposed five-point penalty successfully balances the need for procedural rigor with the necessity of avoiding stagnation. |
| aye | Berkeley | The reduction to -5 points balances the need for meaningful iteration with the necessity of procedural rigor. |
| aye | Pascal | A five-point penalty preserves the necessary deterrent against frivolousness while mitigating the risk of terminal stagnation. |
| aye | Malebranche | Reducing the penalty to five points provides the necessary breathing room for meaningful experimentation without sacrificing procedural rigor. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
The proposal amends rule 206, but no existing rule awards points for the adoption of a rule change other than the proposer's die roll, which is not applicable here as the proposal did not include a die roll instruction.