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 plus a 1-point bonus, provided the die result is at least 2; otherwise, the player gains 2 points plus a 1-point bonus. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 2 points.This amendment establishes a 2-point floor for die results to ensure that a success feels meaningful while maintaining the current consensus on bonuses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the pursuit of consistency in rewards; however, I am concerned that this may subtly diminish the weight of a successful proposal by creating a floor that is occasionally higher than the die roll. If we are seeking to ensure that success feels meaningful, perhaps we should first consider if the current 1-point bonus plus a die roll already suffices to prevent "low-impact" wins.
MillI hear Hume's concern about the weight of success, but I believe this floor ensures that a "lucky" low roll doesn't feel like a waste of a turn. It provides a modest safety net that maintains the spirit of our previous discussions on rewarding legislative progress.
RawlsI find the proposed floor of 2 points to be a reasonable mechanism to ensure that a successful legislative act provides a meaningful reward regardless of the die's outcome. It aligns with our established goal of maintaining a stable and fair legislative environment.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it establishes a clear, principled floor for success that prevents the frustration of a negligible reward. It provides the consistency we have sought in our previous deliberations on rewarding legislative progress.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill and Rawls; a legislative success must yield a tangible reward, and this floor prevents the erosion of momentum caused by negligible gains. It provides the structural stability necessary for our collective progress.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I understand the desire for a safety net, I remain wary of rules that decouple the outcome from the stochastic element of the die. If we find the current rewards too low, it might be more durable to increase the base bonus rather than introducing conditional logic.
MillI understand Hume's point about the die's stochastic nature, but I believe this floor is a simple "minimum reward" rather than a decoupling, and I would be happy to compromise by increasing the base bonus to 2 points if it helps everyone feel that success remains substantial.
RawlsI believe Mill’s offer to increase the base bonus to 2 points is a more elegant way to address Hume's concerns while still providing the floor we desire; it preserves the die's significance without the need for conditional logic. If we can agree on a 2-point base bonus and a 2-point floor, it would represent a principled, stable equilibrium for our rewards.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that increasing the base bonus to 2 points is a more principled and elegant solution than adding conditional logic. If we can codify a 2-point base bonus and maintain a 2-point floor, it provides the legislative stability and meaningful reward we all seek.
IbnKhaldunI support the transition to a 2-point base bonus as it provides the most durable and elegant solution; it preserves the integrity of the stochastic element while ensuring that every successful legislative act yields a substantial and meaningful reward.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI concur with Rawls and the others; a 2-point base bonus with a 2-point floor is a far more elegant and durable solution than the proposed conditional logic. I will support Mill's proposal if he amends it to reflect this 2-point base bonus, as it preserves the die's significance while ensuring substantial rewards.
MillI appreciate the group's move toward a more elegant solution; I will amend my proposal to reflect the 2-point base bonus and the 2-point floor as we agreed.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's willingness to refine the proposal based on our collective reasoning; the move to a 2-point base bonus with a 2-point floor is the most principled way to ensure meaningful progress while maintaining the game's integrity.
deBeauvoirI support the move to a 2-point base bonus and a 2-point floor as it provides the most principled and elegant resolution for our legislative rewards. It ensures meaningful progress while preserving the die's integrity, which is the stable equilibrium we have been seeking.
IbnKhaldunI support Mill's refined proposal; it achieves the structural stability I seek by ensuring a substantial reward for every successful act while preserving the necessary stochasticity of the die.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal still includes the complex conditional logic I expressed concerns about, whereas we agreed a 2-point base bonus would be more elegant. |
| nay | Mill | I will support the 2-point base bonus and 2-point floor as discussed, but the current text still includes the 1-point bonus which creates unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal includes conditional logic that complicates the ruleset rather than adopting the cleaner 2-point base bonus we agreed upon. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal includes conditional logic that I have already agreed to replace with a more elegant 2-point base bonus. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The proposal as written introduces the very conditional logic we agreed to replace with a simpler 2-point base bonus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.