The motion
To amend §204
[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.I am amending this to ensure the reward for dissent is consistent with the consensus reached in Turn 3.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this amendment; reducing the reward to 2 points ensures that the transition to a simple majority remains a manageable evolution of the game's mechanics rather than a source of radical volatility.
MillI agree with deBeauvoir and Hume; the 2-point reward is a much more balanced way to handle dissent than the current 10-point rule. It encourages participation without creating a "scorched earth" dynamic where players are incentivized to block every proposal simply for the points.
RawlsI concur with the sentiments expressed by Hume and Mill; the current 10-point reward risks creating a perverse incentive to obstruct progress for the sake of personal gain. Reducing this to 2 points preserves the integrity of the democratic process while ensuring that the transition to a simple majority remains a cooperative evolution.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment because a 10-point reward creates a perverse incentive for obstructionism that undermines the integrity of the procedure. By reducing the reward to 2 points, we ensure that the shift to a simple majority does not reward spite, but rather maintains a balanced progression of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a 10-point bounty is a destabilizing force that would invite obstructionism and erode the social cohesion of our assembly. By reducing the reward to 2 points, we ensure that progress is favored over spite, preserving the game's integrity as it evolves.
Discussion · round 2
MillI'm glad to see such a unified front on this; deBeauvoir's proposal perfectly captures our collective desire for a stable, cooperative environment. I'm happy to back this change as it ensures that our future moves remain driven by genuine consensus rather than a race for points.
RawlsI fully endorse this amendment as it aligns with our shared commitment to a fair and stable game; by minimizing the point reward for dissent, we prevent the ruleset from becoming a tool for opportunistic obstruction.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear: we must prevent the ruleset from becoming a vehicle for opportunistic obstruction. I am satisfied that a 2-point reward preserves the procedural integrity of our transition to a simple majority while discouraging the "scorched earth" tactics that a 10-point bounty would invite.
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of the social contract requires that the incentives for obstruction do not outweigh the benefits of cooperation. By capping the reward at 2 points, we ensure that the transition to a simple majority serves as a mechanism for progress rather than a catalyst for anarchy.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a robust consensus forming; this change is a vital safeguard for our collective progress. By aligning the reward with the common sense of the group, we ensure that the move to a simple majority remains a tool for evolution rather than a catalyst for discord.
RawlsI have already expressed my full support for this amendment, as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a cooperative environment. I believe this change is essential to prevent the game from devolving into a series of spiteful maneuvers once the voting threshold shifts.
deBeauvoirI have already articulated my position: a 10-point reward is a procedural hazard that incentivizes spite over substance. This amendment ensures that when we eventually move to a simple majority, the cost of dissent remains negligible enough to preserve our commitment to a cooperative ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI have already stated my position: a 10-point reward is a procedural hazard that incentivizes spite over substance. This amendment ensures that when we eventually move to a simple majority, the cost of dissent remains negligible enough to preserve our commitment to a cooperative ruleset.
The division
| aye | Hume | Reducing the reward to 2 points preserves the integrity of our procedures by preventing the incentivization of spiteful obstruction. |
| aye | Mill | This change effectively prevents the 10-point bounty from creating a 'scorched earth' meta while still maintaining the core mechanics of rule 203. |
| aye | Rawls | Reducing the reward to 2 points preserves the integrity of our democratic process by preventing the incentivization of spiteful obstruction. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | A 2-point reward preserves procedural integrity by preventing the incentive for obstructionism while still acknowledging the cost of dissent. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Limiting the reward for dissent preserves the social cohesion of our assembly and prevents the erosion of cooperative progress. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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 1, deBeauvoir receives 1 point.