The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to rule 204, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.This preserves the established 2-point consensus from the previous turns while maintaining the standard die roll for all other proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for consistency regarding rule 204, I believe that codifying a specific point value for one rule and not others creates an arbitrary and potentially messy precedent for future amendments. I would prefer a more general mechanism for point adjustments rather than a specific carve-out for a single rule.
MillI understand your concern about precedent, Hume; however, since we have already collectively agreed to cap the 204 reward at 2 points, this amendment simply codifies that consensus into the scoring mechanic. I'm open to a broader phrasing that allows us to set specific point values for different types of amendments if you feel that would be a cleaner solution.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's perspective on codifying our consensus, but Hume's point regarding arbitrary precedents is well-taken; we should strive for a rule that reflects our collective intent without creating a fragmented scoring system. Perhaps we could instead consider a proposal that allows for a variable point reward to be specified within the text of any rule change, thereby providing the flexibility we desire while maintaining a clean and unified structure.
deBeauvoirRawls's suggestion of a variable reward within the proposal text is a far more principled approach than Mill's specific carve-out, as it avoids the fragmentation Hume rightly identifies. I would support a proposal that allows any amendment to specify its own point reward, as it preserves procedural elegance while honoring our consensus on rule 204.
IbnKhaldunI find Rawls and deBeauvoir's path most compelling, as it mirrors the organic growth of a just polity; we should establish a general mechanism for variable rewards rather than a series of specific, fractured exceptions. I shall support a revision that permits any rule change to explicitly state a point reward, ensuring our institutions remain both flexible and coherent.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus moving toward a variable reward mechanism highly persuasive; it achieves the desired flexibility for rule 204 while preserving the structural integrity of the scoring system. I will support a revision that allows the proposer to specify a point reward within the proposal's text, provided it remains a fixed value at the moment of adoption.
MillI agree with the consensus building toward a variable reward system; it is a much more elegant solution than a specific carve-out and addresses Hume's concerns perfectly. I propose we adjust the wording to allow the proposer to specify a point value within the amendment text, ensuring we can codify our current 204 agreement while keeping the system flexible.
RawlsI believe the consensus on a variable reward mechanism is the most equitable path forward, as it allows us to codify our current agreement on rule 204 while ensuring the ruleset remains robust and adaptable for future needs. I will support the proposal as long as it is phrased to allow the proposer to specify a fixed point reward within the text of the amendment.
deBeauvoirI support the transition to a variable reward mechanism as it satisfies the requirement for procedural elegance; I will vote for the proposal once the wording is refined to allow a proposer to specify a fixed point reward within the text of their amendment.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is clear: we must move beyond the arbitrary and toward a system that reflects our collective will. I support the refinement of rule 202 to allow for a specified point reward within the proposal text, as it provides the structural flexibility required for a maturing society.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am pleased to see the consensus solidify around a variable reward mechanism; it preserves the integrity of rule 202 while providing the necessary flexibility we have already demonstrated a desire for. I will support the proposal provided the final wording clearly authorizes the proposer to specify a fixed point value within the text of the change.
MillI'm very pleased with the consensus we've reached; I'll move to refine the wording to explicitly allow the proposer to specify a fixed point reward within the proposal text to ensure our transition from the current 204 consensus is smooth and structurally sound.
RawlsI am satisfied with the current trajectory; the consensus to allow a specified fixed point reward within the proposal text provides the necessary flexibility while maintaining a unified and coherent scoring structure.
deBeauvoirI fully endorse the move toward a variable reward mechanism as it upholds the principle of procedural elegance over arbitrary carve-outs. I will vote aye as soon as the text is refined to explicitly permit the proposer to specify a fixed point reward within the proposal's own text.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by authorizing the proposer to specify a fixed point reward within the proposal's own text, we replace a brittle exception with a sophisticated and scalable mechanism for institutional growth.
The division
| nay | Hume | This proposal creates the very arbitrary and fragmented exception to rule 202 that the consensus sought to avoid by moving toward a variable reward mechanism. |
| nay | Mill | The current wording creates the exact 'arbitrary and messy precedent' Hume and Rawls warned against by hardcoding a specific rule for 204; I propose we adopt the consensus for a variable reward instead. |
| nay | Rawls | This specific carve-out for rule 204 creates the very fragmentation and arbitrary precedent that we have collectively agreed to avoid in favor of a general variable reward mechanism. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed wording creates the exact arbitrary carve-out we agreed to avoid by instead specifying a variable reward mechanism. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | This proposal creates the very fractured exceptions I sought to avoid by codifying a specific carve-out rather than a general variable reward mechanism. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.