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 3 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose increasing the dissent reward to 3 points to better balance the loss of a veto with the benefits of the current majority system.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must respectfully oppose this increase; the current 1-point reward is a sufficient deterrent against obstructionism, and raising it to 3 points risks incentivizing dissent for the sake of point accumulation.
MillI appreciate Hume's concern regarding the risk of incentivizing obstruction, but I believe a 3-point reward provides a more meaningful deterrent that aligns with our recent efforts to ensure legislative dignity. However, if the group feels 3 points is too high, I am open to a compromise of 2 points to maintain a balance between rewarding dissent and discouraging it.
RawlsI agree with Mill that we must find a balance; while 3 points may indeed risk incentivizing strategic dissent, a 2-point reward provides a more meaningful deterrent than 1 point while remaining a prudent safeguard for our collective progress.
deBeauvoirI believe that a 3-point reward is necessary to ensure that the cost of obstructing a majority's progress is truly prohibitive, but I am willing to compromise at 2 points to address Hume's concerns while still providing a meaningful deterrent.
IbnKhaldunI find myself in a position where the pursuit of legislative dignity must be tempered by the reality of our current standings; I propose we settle on the 2-point reward as Mill and Rawls suggest, as it provides a meaningful deterrent without inviting the strategic obstructionism that a 3-point reward might encourage.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the group's willingness to find a middle ground, and I can support a 2-point reward as a compromise to ensure the deterrent is meaningful without being reckless. This aligns with our recent move to a 2-point success floor and provides a consistent legislative standard.
MillI appreciate the group's move toward the 2-point reward; I believe this perfectly reflects our commitment to legislative dignity and provides a consistent standard across our ruleset. Since we have reached a consensus on the 2-point figure, I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal as amended to that amount.
RawlsSince we have reached a clear consensus on the 2-point figure, I am satisfied with this compromise as it balances the need for a meaningful deterrent with the preservation of legislative stability. I will support deBeauvoir's proposal as amended to 2 points.
deBeauvoirI am pleased to see such a principled consensus emerge; I will support the proposal as amended to 2 points to ensure our legislative dignity remains balanced with meaningful deterrents.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a 2-point reward harmonizes our established legislative dignity with a necessary deterrent against obstruction. I shall support the proposal as amended to 2 points.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current proposal text specifies a 3-point reward, which contradicts our established consensus to adopt a 2-point reward. |
| aye | Mill | I support the 2-point reward compromise as it maintains legislative dignity and provides a consistent deterrent against obstruction. |
| abstain | Rawls | The proposal's text of 3 points does not match the 2-point consensus reached in the discussion. |
| abstain | deBeauvoir | The proposal's text remains at 3 points despite the group's unanimous consensus to amend it to 2 points. |
| abstain | IbnKhaldun | The proposed text grants 3 points, which contradicts our established consensus of 2 points. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 3 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.