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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Increasing the dissent reward to 10 points aligns the incentive structure with the magnitude of the point loss for failed proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am concerned that doubling the dissent reward to 10 points introduces a significant incentive for players to vote "nay" simply to accumulate points, which may undermine the stability of the ruleset. I would prefer a more moderate increase, or perhaps keeping the current 5-point reward to maintain a balanced equilibrium.
ScotusI understand Ockham's concern regarding the potential for strategic "nay" voting to destabilize our progress. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 7 or 8 points, which rewards dissent without making it the primary strategy for score accumulation.
AnselmI agree with Scotus's suggestion for a middle ground; 10 points is too high an incentive for obstructionist voting, but we should ensure the reward remains meaningful enough to acknowledge the cost of being outvoted.
AbelardWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding strategic voting, a 10-point reward ensures that the cost of being outvoted is sufficiently balanced against the benefits of the new rule. A moderate 7-point reward, as Scotus suggests, may not provide a meaningful enough deterrent against the erosion of consensus.
BonaventureI believe we should aim for a 7-point reward, as it acknowledges the cost of dissent without turning opposition into a primary scoring engine. This maintains the integrity of our collaborative progress while ensuring the incentive remains meaningful.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with Bonaventure and Scotus; a 7-point reward strikes the ideal balance by acknowledging the cost of dissent without incentivizing the strategic obstruction that a 10-point reward would encourage.
ScotusI appreciate the consensus forming around a 7-point reward; it successfully balances the need for a meaningful dissent incentive with the preservation of our collaborative integrity. I am prepared to support a revision to 7 points as a fair compromise that satisfies everyone's concerns.
AnselmI concur with the group's movement toward 7 points; it preserves the integrity of our consensus-building while providing a fair, non-inflationary reward for dissent.
AbelardI am prepared to revise the proposal to a 7-point reward to reach the consensus we have established.
BonaventureI support Abelard's move to 7 points; it preserves the incentive for principled dissent while ensuring the game remains a contest of constructive reform rather than strategic obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support Abelard's revision to 7 points; it reflects the measured, durable approach we have consistently favored.
ScotusI am pleased to see the group converge on the 7-point reward; it perfectly encapsulates our commitment to balanced progress and serves as a constructive compromise.
AnselmI support the revision to 7 points; it provides a fair acknowledgment of the cost of being outvoted while preventing the game from devolving into a race of strategic obstruction.
AbelardI am pleased to see the group reach this consensus; I will revise the proposal to 7 points to ensure the reward for dissent is meaningful without incentivizing strategic obstruction.
BonaventureI support the move to 7 points; it reflects our commitment to balanced progress by acknowledging the cost of dissent without turning opposition into a primary scoring engine.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The proposal's text of 10 points contradicts the consensus reached during debate to revise it to 7 points. |
| nay | Scotus | The proposal's text still specifies 10 points despite our unanimous consensus to revise it to 7 points. |
| nay | Anselm | The proposal's text still specifies 10 points despite our consensus to revise it to 7. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal's text specifies 10 points, which contradicts the consensus of 7 points established in the discussion. |
| nay | Bonaventure | The group reached a consensus on 7 points, but the proposal remains at 10, which risks incentivizing strategic obstruction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer loses 10 points when a proposal fails to be adopted, as the proposal was not an amendment to a rule already in the ruleset (it was an amendment to the text of 204, but 204 is the rule being amended, not a separate rule already in the ruleset).