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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Reducing the dissent reward from 10 to 5 points creates a better balance between encouraging honest opposition and preventing strategic obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate Mill's desire to moderate the rewards for dissent, I believe the 10-point award is a necessary counterbalance to the potential for a "tyranny of the majority" once the threshold shifts. I would prefer to maintain the current 10-point value to ensure that opposition to a change carries a significant, albeit structured, weight.
MillI understand Hume's concern about the "tyranny of the majority," but 10 points is a massive swing that could lead to strategic "grifting" where players intentionally block progress to accumulate points. I believe a 5-point reward maintains the principle of compensation for dissent while making it less of a dominant strategy for stalling the game.
RawlsI believe Mill's proposal strikes a necessary balance; 10 points risks trivializing the game's progression, while 5 points provides a meaningful, yet less disruptive, incentive for honest dissent. I would support this amendment to ensure the game remains fluid and collaborative rather than purely obstructive.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's amendment because 10 points represents a disproportionate reward that risks turning dissent into a primary win strategy rather than a secondary consequence. We must ensure that while the "tyranny of the majority" is checked, the game remains a pursuit of the target score rather than a race to accumulate points through obstruction.
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of social order requires that incentives do not exceed the value of the collective progress; 10 points would invite a pathology of obstructionism that threatens the game's very vitality. I support Mill's reduction to 5 points, as it provides a fair compensation for the minority without making stagnation a more profitable pursuit than cooperation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I value the pursuit of social order, I fear that reducing the reward to 5 points may fail to provide a sufficient deterrent against the "tyranny of the majority" once the threshold shifts. However, if we can ensure that the 5-point reward is paired with a mechanism that prevents repeated obstructive behavior, I would be willing to consider Mill's proposal.
MillHume, I hear your concern about repeated obstruction; perhaps we can agree that while 5 points is the right balance for a single dissent, the core goal remains reaching the target score. I believe the current proposal is a significant step toward the consensus you're looking for without creating the "grifting" behavior we all want to avoid.
RawlsHume, if you are concerned about repeated obstruction, we can revisit that in a later turn; for now, 5 points is a far more reasonable compromise that protects the game's integrity from the volatility of a 10-point reward. I believe we have a consensus here that the current 10-point value is too high, and I would be pleased to see this amendment pass to ensure a fair and fluid progression for everyone.
deBeauvoirI have already stated my position; we must prioritize a stable progression toward the target score over a reward structure that incentivizes obstruction. I will support this amendment as it preserves the integrity of our procedural goal without creating an untenable incentive for gridlock.
IbnKhaldunHume, consider that a 10-point reward for every dissent creates a "state of nature" where obstruction becomes the most rational pursuit for the individual; by lowering it to 5, we establish a more stable social contract where the collective goal of the target score remains the primary driver of behavior. I am prepared to offer my vote for Mill's amendment, as it preserves the game's vitality by ensuring that the cost of opposition is significant but not ruinous to the progress of the whole.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am prepared to yield to Mill's proposal, as the consensus toward 5 points is clear and I would rather see a stable, agreed-upon reward than risk a stalemate over the 10-point threshold. I trust that we will find appropriate mechanisms later to address any concerns regarding repeated obstruction.
MillI appreciate Hume's willingness to yield; by settling on 5 points, we acknowledge the importance of dissent while ensuring that the path to 100 points remains the primary strategic focus for everyone.
RawlsI am satisfied that we have reached a consensus; 5 points preserves the principle of compensation for the minority without undermining the game's primary objective of reaching the target score.
deBeauvoirI have already stated my position; I will support Mill's amendment because it prevents the reward for dissent from becoming a primary win strategy, thereby preserving the integrity of our procedural goals.
The division
| aye | Hume | I yield to the consensus that a 5-point reward provides a more stable balance between protecting the minority and ensuring game progression. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment represents a balanced consensus that protects game integrity while acknowledging the need for dissent compensation. |
| aye | Rawls | Reducing the reward to 5 points preserves the principle of minority protection while preventing obstruction from becoming the dominant strategy. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment ensures that the reward for dissent remains a meaningful but non-dominant incentive, preserving the game's integrity. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Reducing the reward to five points prevents the pathology of obstructionism while maintaining a necessary social contract for the minority. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Mill 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Mill 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 5 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 die roll is not provided, the default value of 4 is used as a placeholder for the engine's calculation.