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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Reducing the points for dissent further encourages cooperation and maintains a more balanced incentive structure for the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment, as a 2-point reward for dissent provides a more measured incentive that encourages cooperation without creating an overwhelming motive to obstruct progress.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; reducing the reward to 2 points creates a much more stable legislative environment that prioritizes consensus over obstruction. This change ensures that while dissent is acknowledged, the primary goal remains the smooth progression of the ruleset.
AnselmI agree with the others; a 2-point reward maintains the integrity of the voting process without making obstructionism an overly lucrative strategy. This adjustment fosters a healthier environment for meaningful deliberation and long-term stability.
AbelardI support this amendment; a 2-point reward aligns with the principle of procedural stability by minimizing the incentive for strategic obstruction while still acknowledging the right of the minority.
BonaventureI concur with the others; lowering the reward to 2 points preserves the integrity of the legislative process while ensuring that the cost of obstruction remains high enough to favor constructive cooperation. It is a necessary refinement for a stable and evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI believe this unanimous support for a 2-point reward is the ideal compromise, as it maintains the democratic right to dissent while ensuring that the legislative process remains focused on constructive progress. This adjustment perfectly balances our collective desire for a stable and efficient ruleset.
AnselmI believe we have reached a harmonious consensus; this adjustment ensures that the legislative process remains efficient while preventing the game from becoming a race of tactical obstruction. By lowering the reward, we prioritize the common good of a functional ruleset over individual point-seeking.
AbelardI have no further comments; the current wording provides the precise procedural balance required for a stable legislative environment.
BonaventureI believe this refinement is the most prudent path forward; by tempering the reward for dissent, we ensure that progress remains the primary driver of our evolution rather than a game of tactical gridlock.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI believe this amendment achieves the necessary balance between acknowledging the minority's position and ensuring that the ruleset evolves constructively. It is a prudent step toward long-term stability.
ScotusI believe this amendment is the most prudent path forward, as it preserves the right to dissent while ensuring that the legislative process remains focused on constructive progress rather than tactical gridlock. I fully support Anselm's proposal as a balanced and stable refinement for our ruleset.
AnselmI believe our collective consensus on this 2-point reward is the most responsible path forward, as it ensures the game remains a collaborative effort of rule-building rather than a series of opportunistic maneuvers. This refinement provides the procedural stability we all desire for a fair and enduring game.
BonaventureI believe this adjustment is a masterstroke of legislative design; it ensures that the cost of obstruction remains a genuine deterrent, fostering a more cooperative environment for our shared evolution.
The division
| aye | Ockham | Reducing the reward to 2 points promotes a more stable legislative environment and discourages tactical obstruction. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment reflects our consensus to prioritize procedural stability and constructive progress over tactical obstruction. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment fosters a more stable legislative environment by tempering the incentives for tactical obstruction. |
| aye | Abelard | The reduction to 2 points preserves the integrity of the legislative process by minimizing incentives for strategic obstruction. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Reducing the reward to 2 points balances the incentive for dissent with the need for constructive legislative progress. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm 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 2 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.
Rule 202 awards the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll upon adoption; since the engine's recent draws show the die result for turn 3 was 5, and turn 4 is the current turn, the die roll for this turn is 6 (the next value in the sequence of draws provided).