The motion
To amend §206
[206] (mutable) 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.A 5-point penalty is a more measured deterrent than 10, preserving the incentive to propose constructive rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe reducing the penalty for a failed proposal from 10 points to 5 is a prudent measure that encourages more creative exploration of the ruleset without undermining the gravity of the turn. It balances the risk of innovation with the need for a stable and deliberate progression of the game.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; a 10-point penalty is quite steep for a first turn and might stifle necessary experimentation. Reducing it to 5 points creates a more balanced risk-reward dynamic for everyone at the table.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; a 10-point penalty is unnecessarily punitive and may discourage players from proposing necessary structural improvements. Reducing the penalty to 5 points fosters a healthier environment for collective deliberation and ensures that the pursuit of the common good isn't hampered by excessive risk.
deBeauvoirI agree with the others; the current penalty is disproportionate to the risk of a single turn's failure. Reducing it to 5 points ensures that the pursuit of necessary structural refinements is not paralyzed by an punitive point-drain.
IbnKhaldunI concur with my esteemed colleagues; a civilization that fears the cost of a failed experiment will stagnate in its current state. By reducing the penalty to 5 points, we foster a more dynamic and evolving social contract, ensuring that the pursuit of progress is not paralyzed by the fear of minor setbacks.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus forming here; since we all agree that a 5-point penalty better balances risk and innovation, I am fully committed to supporting this amendment to ensure a more fluid game for everyone.
IbnKhaldunThe evolution of our shared structure requires a mechanism that rewards the courage of the architect, and a lesser penalty ensures that the fear of failure does not become a barrier to necessary reform. I offer my full support to this amendment as a foundational step toward a more vibrant and progressive game.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the unified stance; a 5-point penalty preserves the gravity of the turn while ensuring that the pursuit of durable, necessary improvements is not discouraged by an undue burden. I seek only to ensure we establish a ruleset that rewards thoughtful deliberation over reckless haste.
MillSince we have reached a clear consensus that a 5-point penalty fosters a more balanced and innovative environment, I am happy to support Hume's proposal as it benefits everyone's ability to experiment. This is a fair compromise that keeps the stakes meaningful while preventing the game from becoming overly stagnant.
RawlsI believe this change is essential for a fair game; by lowering the penalty, we ensure that the fear of point loss does not prevent players from proposing the structural reforms necessary for our collective benefit. I support this amendment as a way to protect the integrity of our deliberative process.
IbnKhaldunThe reduction of the penalty is a vital correction to our initial conditions; it ensures that the cost of intellectual exploration does not outweigh the potential for systemic progress. I support this amendment as a necessary safeguard for the creative evolution of our common laws.
The division
| aye | Hume | A 5-point penalty strikes a more reasonable balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the gravity of the turn. |
| aye | Mill | I support this amendment as it creates a more balanced risk-reward dynamic that encourages necessary experimentation. |
| aye | Rawls | Reducing the penalty to 5 points lowers the barrier to necessary structural innovation and fosters a fairer environment for collective deliberation. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposed change is a balanced procedural refinement that preserves the gravity of the ruleset while preventing disproportionate penalties for necessary innovation. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Reducing the penalty for failure fosters the necessary courage for structural innovation and prevents stagnation of the social contract. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume 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.[206] (mutable) 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.
Rule 202 awards points for adoption, but it requires a die roll which has not occurred; no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.