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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.True progress requires that the pursuit of law be rewarded even when the specific vision fails, fostering a more stable social order.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must oppose this proposal; it would create a system where the outcome of a move is irrelevant to the score, thereby undermining the strategic incentives that give the game its structure.
MillI understand Hume's concern about strategic incentives, but I believe we can find a compromise that rewards the effort of a well-crafted proposal while still distinguishing between success and failure. Perhaps we could instead award a smaller, fixed number of points for a defeated proposal to acknowledge the work put into it without making the outcome of the vote irrelevant.
RawlsI find IbnKhaldun's proposal fundamentally flawed as it removes the primary consequence of a failed move, yet I agree with Mill that we should acknowledge the intellectual labor of drafting. We should consider a compromise that awards a small, fixed number of points for a defeated proposal, ensuring that effort is recognized without eroding the game's competitive integrity.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls that IbnKhaldun's proposal is too extreme; rewarding a failure with the same weight as a success removes the necessity of persuasion, which is the heart of this game. I would support an amendment that awards a small, fixed number of points for a defeat, such as 1 or 2, to recognize the labor of drafting without neutralizing the stakes of the vote.
IbnKhaldunI contend that the current structure creates a cycle of stagnation where the fear of penalty prevents the necessary evolution of our laws; by rewarding the labor of proposal regardless of the vote, we encourage a more robust and frequent experimentation with the ruleset. While I acknowledge Mill and Rawls's desire for nuance, a fixed reward for defeat ensures that the "asabiyyah" of our collective progress is not stifled by the risk of point loss.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI maintain my opposition to IbnKhaldun's current wording because it completely removes the risk of failure, but I am willing to support a proposal that awards a small, fixed number of points for a defeat, as suggested by Mill and Rawls. This would preserve the strategic necessity of success while acknowledging the labor of drafting.
MillI appreciate the consensus forming around acknowledging drafting labor; I propose we adopt deBeauvoir's suggestion of a 2-point reward for a defeated proposal to balance the stakes with the recognition of effort.
RawlsI support Mill's suggestion of a 2-point reward for a defeated proposal, as it provides a meaningful recognition of intellectual labor while maintaining the primary incentive to succeed. This compromise ensures that the "common good" of the game is served by fostering creativity without neutralizing the strategic importance of the vote.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's proposal to award 2 points for a defeat; it satisfies my requirement for procedural recognition of labor without the radical leveling of IbnKhaldun's initial move.
IbnKhaldunI find the proposed 2-point reward for defeat to be a wise concession that aligns with my goal of fostering a more dynamic and less risk-averse legislative environment. By providing a modest reward for the labor of drafting, we ensure that the fear of point loss does not stifle the necessary evolution of our laws, thereby strengthening the collective progress of the game.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the current consensus on a 2-point reward for defeat to be a measured and constructive compromise that respects both the value of labor and the necessity of risk. I will support Mill's revision of the proposal to reflect this specific point value.
MillI appreciate the group's willingness to find a middle ground; I believe the 2-point reward for a defeated proposal is a fair way to recognize the effort of drafting while maintaining the competitive integrity of the vote. I will support the revised proposal.
RawlsI support Mill's revision of the proposal, as it represents a fair compromise that balances the recognition of intellectual labor with the preservation of strategic stakes. This move ensures that the game remains challenging and rewarding while fostering a more creative legislative environment for all participants.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus; a 2-point reward for a defeat provides the necessary procedural recognition of labor without the radical leveling of the original proposal. I will support Mill's revision to formalize this compromise.
IbnKhaldunI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; by codifying a 2-point reward for defeat, we foster a legislative culture where the courage to innovate is protected from the tyranny of simple point loss. I will support Mill's revision as it provides the necessary "asabiyyah" to push our ruleset toward a more vibrant and experimental state.
The division
| nay | Hume | IbnKhaldun's current wording is still flawed as it grants an identical reward for success and failure, which I would only support if the defeat reward were explicitly capped at 2 points. |
| nay | Mill | I am supporting the consensus to award a fixed 2-point reward instead of the variable die roll proposed here. |
| nay | Rawls | The current wording is logically identical for both success and failure, which would render the outcome of the vote entirely meaningless for the score. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The current wording is ambiguous as it does not specify that the die roll for a defeat is separate from the die roll for a success. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This amendment fosters a more dynamic legislative environment by rewarding the intellectual labor of innovation regardless of the immediate outcome. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 5 points.