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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Reducing the points from 20 to 5 balances the incentive for dissent while preventing the game from escalating too quickly.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI find this reduction to 5 points to be a much more balanced approach than the previous 10-point proposal. It provides a meaningful deterrent against obstructionism without creating such a significant point swing that it destabilizes the game's progression.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; reducing the reward to 5 points strikes a fair balance between protecting the minority and maintaining a stable game pace. I support Anselm's revised proposal as a reasonable compromise.
AnselmI appreciate the support from Ockham and Scotus; this adjustment ensures that while we protect the integrity of the process, we do not allow a single dissenting vote to become an overly lucrative windfall. By lowering the reward to 5 points, we maintain a fair balance that encourages cooperation over opportunistic obstruction.
AbelardI concur with the others; a 5-point award is a measured, proportional consequence that upholds the principle of consensus while ensuring that dissent carries a non-trivial cost. It is a procedurally sound compromise that I can accept as a rule of the game.
BonaventureI agree with the consensus; a 5-point reward preserves the spirit of the rule as a stabilizing mechanism rather than a primary path to victory. This refinement ensures the game remains a collaborative evolution of mechanics rather than a race of opportunistic sabotage.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI believe this 5-point adjustment reflects our collective desire for a stable, cooperative environment. I fully support this as a fair compromise that preserves the spirit of the ruleset.
AnselmI am pleased to see such a unified consensus on this adjustment; it ensures our ruleset remains a vehicle for cooperative progress rather than a reward for obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI am pleased to see this unanimous support for a moderated reward; it ensures the integrity of our process while fostering the cooperative spirit we've established. I fully endorse Anselm's amendment as a balanced and stable path forward for all players.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This is a measured, balanced amendment that preserves the integrity of the process without creating excessive point swings. |
| aye | Scotus | This 5-point reward is a fair compromise that balances minority protection with game stability. |
| aye | Anselm | This 5-point reward provides a balanced check on obstructionism while maintaining a cooperative game environment. |
| aye | Abelard | A five-point reward is a procedurally balanced compromise that provides a fair consequence for dissent without destabilizing the game's scoring. |
| aye | Bonaventure | A five-point reward provides a balanced incentive for cooperation while preventing the game from devolving into a series of opportunistic sabotages. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 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 10 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 points for an adopted proposal only if the proposer throws a die, but no die roll was provided for this turn.