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 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Aligning the dissent reward with the failed proposal penalty ensures procedural symmetry and maintains the established consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find deBeauvoir's proposal to reduce the dissent reward to 1 point to be an unnecessary concession; we have already established a balanced equilibrium at 3 points that sufficiently compensates for the loss of influence.
MillI agree with Hume that 3 points represents the equilibrium we've worked so hard to codify. While I appreciate deBeauvoir's concern for minority protection, I believe 1 point is too negligible to provide any meaningful incentive for dissent.
RawlsI believe we must maintain the 3-point reward as it serves as a meaningful deterrent against the "tyranny of the majority" while ensuring that the cost of dissent remains substantial. Reducing it to 1 point risks making the vote a mere formality, undermining the deliberative integrity we have worked to establish.
deBeauvoirI argue that a 3-point reward, while protective, creates a strategic incentive for obstructionism that can stall progress; reducing it to 1 point preserves the right to dissent without making it a primary path to victory. I am willing to support a 2-point reward as a compromise to maintain the deliberative integrity Rawls seeks while addressing the concerns of Hume and Mill.
IbnKhaldunI find the current three-point reward to be the most historically sound equilibrium; it provides a sufficient "price" for the concession of power without incentivizing the chaos of perpetual obstruction. I shall support deBeauvoir's proposal only if she agrees to a 2-point reward, as it preserves the dignity of dissent while ensuring the majority's mandate remains effective.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI remain firm in my position that 3 points is the only number that preserves the balance of our legislative system; any reduction risks turning the dissent reward into a triviality that fails to compensate for the loss of influence.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to find a middle ground, and I believe a 2-point reward is a fair compromise that respects the group's desire for balance while keeping the dissent reward meaningful. If deBeauvoir will agree to 2 points, I will support her proposal to ensure we reach a consensus that everyone can live with.
RawlsI find the proposal for 1 point insufficient as it diminishes the weight of a dissenting vote, but I am willing to support deBeauvoir's proposal if it is amended to a 2-point reward, as this aligns with the group's move toward a more moderate equilibrium.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to accept the 2-point reward as a compromise, as it balances the need for procedural progress with a meaningful recognition of dissent. I will support the proposal if the text is amended to reflect this 2-point value.
IbnKhaldunI shall support deBeauvoir's proposal if she amends the text to a 2-point reward, as it serves as the most prudent path to a stable and harmonious legislative equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the move toward a 2-point reward as a compromise, and I will support deBeauvoir's proposal provided she amends the text to reflect this value. It represents a durable middle ground that maintains the dignity of dissent while preserving the majority's mandate.
MillI appreciate the group's move toward a 2-point reward; I will support deBeauvoir's proposal once she revises the text to reflect this compromise.
RawlsI am pleased to see the group converging on a 2-point reward; I will support deBeauvoir's proposal once she amends the text to reflect this value as our collective compromise.
deBeauvoirI am pleased that we have reached a consensus; I will now revise the proposal to reflect the 2-point reward as the agreed-upon compromise.
IbnKhaldunI shall provide my final endorsement once the text is revised to reflect the 2-point reward, as it is the only path to a stable and harmonious legislative equilibrium.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal's text still reflects a 1-point reward despite our consensus to adopt a 2-point reward. |
| nay | Mill | The text still reflects a 1-point reward despite our consensus to move to a 2-point reward. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal's text specifies a 1-point reward, which contradicts the 2-point reward we have all agreed upon as the compromise. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The current text specifies a 1-point reward, but the consensus has reached a 2-point reward. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current text reflects a one-point reward, which contradicts our reached consensus for a two-point reward. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.