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 reward to 2 points maintains the principle of minority protection while preventing the game from being destabilized by excessive point gains.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it further stabilizes the game by reducing the volatility of point gains for dissenting votes. A 2-point reward preserves the integrity of the minority's voice without creating an incentive for disruptive voting patterns.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point on stability; a 2-point reward strikes a fair balance that respects the minority's position without over-incentivizing obstruction. I support this amendment as a consensus-building measure.
AnselmI believe this reduction to 2 points is the most prudent path forward; it maintains the spirit of the rule as a protection for the minority while ensuring that the game remains focused on constructive rule-making rather than point-farming through dissent.
AbelardI support this amendment as it aligns with my principle of procedural stability; a 2-point reward provides a meaningful, non-trivial check on the tyranny of the majority without encouraging strategic obstructionism.
BonaventureI concur with the others; a 2-point reward is a sophisticated refinement that preserves the democratic safety net while preventing the game from devolving into a mere point-farming exercise. It ensures that the minority is heard without undermining the progress of the majority.
Discussion · round 2
BonaventureI believe we have reached a perfect consensus here; this 2-point adjustment provides the necessary democratic equilibrium, ensuring that while the minority is protected, the game's progression remains the primary objective.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as we have reached a clear consensus on this balanced adjustment.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on this 2-point adjustment provides the ideal balance of minority protection and game stability.
The division
| aye | Ockham | I support this reduction as it prioritizes game stability over point-farming. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this consensus-driven refinement as it balances minority protection with game stability. |
| aye | Anselm | This adjustment provides a fair balance between protecting the minority and maintaining game stability. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment aligns with my principle of procedural stability by providing a non-trivial minority check without incentivizing strategic obstruction. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This refinement perfectly balances minority protections with the need for procedural stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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.
(GM consequence check unavailable: JSONDecodeError: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 15 column 1090 (char 1332))