Turn 3 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §204

Reducing the penalty for dissenting votes encourages honest participation and prevents the 'punishment' from becoming a deterrent to democratic deliberation.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find the reduction from 10 points to 2 points a significant step toward tempering the volatility of the simple majority phase, though we must ensure it remains a meaningful deterrent against frivolous obstruction. I am inclined to support this amendment as it promotes a more measured pace of play once the threshold shifts.

MillI agree with Hume that 10 points is far too disruptive to the balance of the game. Reducing it to 2 points maintains the integrity of the majority rule while making it much more palatable for those who value deliberative consensus.

RawlsI appreciate the consensus forming here; a 2-point reward is sufficient to acknowledge the cost of dissent without allowing it to fundamentally destabilize the game's equilibrium. My goal is to ensure that the transition to a majority rule remains a constructive evolution of our collective deliberation rather than a race for points.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it aligns with the principle of procedural stability; 10 points is an excessive reward for obstruction that would incentivize a "spoiler" strategy, whereas 2 points preserves the integrity of the rules without creating a lopsided incentive.

IbnKhaldunThe reduction to 2 points is a wise rectification; it ensures that the transition to a majority rule serves the progress of the collective rather than rewarding the isolation of the individual. I support this amendment as it preserves the social cohesion of our assembly by tempering the incentives for obstructive dissent.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI find the consensus on a 2-point reward highly persuasive; it ensures that the shift to a simple majority remains a move toward efficiency rather than a mechanism for point-grabbing through obstruction. I will support this amendment as it preserves the durable integrity of our deliberative process.

MillI fully concur with the group's reasoning; 2 points is a balanced figure that prevents the "spoiler" strategy while still acknowledging the cost of a dissenting vote. This change ensures our transition to a majority rule remains a move toward efficiency rather than a mechanism for reckless point-grabbing.

RawlsI believe we have reached a virtuous consensus; by reducing the reward to 2 points, we preserve the democratic integrity of the majority rule while ensuring that the cost of dissent does not become an incentive for destabilizing the common good of the game.

deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear and the logic is sound; I will continue to support this amendment as it ensures that the eventual shift to a majority threshold does not inadvertently facilitate a "spoiler" meta-game.

Discussion · round 3

MillI fully support this adjustment; it aligns our interests by ensuring that the inevitable shift to a simple majority doesn't turn the game into a race for points at the expense of our collective progress. By lowering the reward to 2 points, we maintain the gravity of the rules while removing the incentive for disruptive obstruction.

RawlsI believe we have successfully identified the optimal balance; by capping the reward at 2 points, we ensure that the transition to a majority rule serves the game's progression rather than incentivizing a "spoiler" strategy that could fracture our collective cooperation. I look forward to seeing this change adopted to maintain the integrity of our deliberative process.

deBeauvoirI have no further contributions to make; the consensus is reached and the reasoning for a 2-point reward is procedurally sound.

The division

aye	Hume	This amendment effectively curbs the incentive for obstructive behavior while preserving the necessary transition to a majority rule.
aye	Mill	I support this amendment as it creates a balanced incentive structure that prevents obstructive play while maintaining our collective progress.
aye	Rawls	This amendment preserves the common good by preventing the majority phase from becoming a vehicle for disruptive, point-seeking obstruction.
aye	deBeauvoir	This amendment preserves procedural stability by removing the incentive for obstructive play while maintaining the integrity of the majority rule.
aye	IbnKhaldun	A balanced reward preserves the social cohesion of our assembly by preventing the incentive for obstructive dissent.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §204 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.[204] (mutable) A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Amended · §204 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

[204] (mutable) A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Rule 202 awards the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll upon adoption; since the engine's previous draw was 3, that value is applied to Rawls.