The motion
To amend §204
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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Removing the point incentive for dissenting is essential for maintaining a cooperative atmosphere and preventing strategic obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a necessary step toward stability, as rewarding dissent with points encourages obstructionism and creates an incentive to block progress for the sake of a minor score. By removing the 10-point gain, we ensure that the primary goal remains reaching the target score through constructive rule-making rather than strategic sabotage.
MillI agree with Hume; rewarding dissent creates a perverse incentive to block every proposal just to farm points. Removing the 10-point gain makes the game much more cooperative and ensures we are actually trying to build a functional ruleset.
RawlsI concur with the preceding logic; rewarding opposition with points incentivizes a "spoiler" strategy that undermines the common good of a functional game. Removing the 10-point gain ensures that players are motivated to deliberate in good faith rather than seeking to profit from obstruction.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment; rewarding dissent with points creates a perverse incentive for obstructionism that violates the principle of procedural fairness. A game of Nomic should reward constructive rule-making, not the strategic sabotage of others' efforts.
IbnKhaldunI find the prevailing sentiment regarding the removal of the 10-point reward to be astute; rewarding obstructionism breeds a decadent culture of stagnation that serves no one. However, let us ensure this change is viewed not merely as a concession to cooperation, but as an essential structural reform to preserve the integrity of the game's social contract.
Discussion · round 2
MillI've already stated my support, but I'd like to emphasize that this change prevents the game from devolving into a zero-sum struggle where the most effective way to win is simply to say "no" to everyone else. This is a win-win for the table's social health and ensures we spend our energy on meaningful rule-building.
deBeauvoirI must emphasize that my support is rooted in the principle of reciprocity: a rule should not grant a player a systemic advantage for a behavior that is inherently non-constructive. By removing the 10-point reward, we ensure that the procedure for rule-making remains a tool for progress rather than a mechanism for point-farming through obstruction.
IbnKhaldunTo ensure the longevity of our collective endeavor, we must recognize that a system which rewards the preservation of the status quo over the advancement of the common good will inevitably face decay. This amendment is a necessary refinement of our social contract, ensuring that the path to victory is paved with constructive contribution rather than the mere accumulation of points through inertia.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a clear consensus; this change is vital to ensure that the shift to a simple majority remains a mechanism for efficiency rather than a license for point-farming. I urge everyone to vote aye to secure a more stable and constructive legislative environment.
RawlsThe current proposal correctly identifies that the 10-point reward for dissent creates a perverse incentive that could destabilize our collective progress. By removing this reward, we protect the integrity of the voting process and ensure that the move to a simple majority serves the common good of efficiency rather than individualistic obstruction.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the assembly; by removing this reward, we prevent the emergence of a "parasitic" strategy where one may profit from the stagnation of the collective. It is a necessary refinement to ensure that the transition to a majority vote facilitates progress rather than rewarding the vanity of the obstructionist.
The division
| aye | Hume | Removing the 10-point reward for dissent prevents point-farming and preserves the integrity of our legislative progress. |
| aye | Mill | Removing the point reward for dissent prevents obstructionist point-farming and encourages more constructive cooperation. |
| aye | Rawls | Removing the reward for dissent prevents a 'spoiler' strategy that would undermine the common good of a productive game. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | A rule that rewards obstructionism violates the principle of procedural reciprocity and creates a perverse incentive for systemic sabotage. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Removing the reward for obstruction is a necessary structural reform to prevent the decay of our collective progress through parasitic stagnation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume 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.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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume 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 0 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 points for an adopted proposal, but since the division was unanimous, no player received the 10 points mentioned in the old version of 204 (which is now amended) or the 0 points in the new version.