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.I seek to restore a more meaningful penalty for dissent to preserve the integrity of the unanimous consent phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI oppose this amendment; increasing the dissent reward to 10 points introduces unnecessary volatility into the scoring system. We should strive for a stable, predictable progression toward the target score.
ScotusI agree with Ockham that 10 points could lead to erratic swings in the score; however, I believe a moderate increase might better balance the risk of being outvoted. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 7 or 8 points to satisfy both the need for stability and a meaningful dissent reward.
AnselmI agree with Ockham that 10 points is too high; it risks turning the game into a race of strategic obstruction rather than constructive rule-making. I suggest we maintain the current 5 points to ensure that the incentive to cooperate remains stronger than the incentive to simply dissent.
AbelardI disagree with the sentiment that 10 points is "unnecessarily" volatile; a proceduralist must ensure that the cost of being outvoted is sufficiently significant to discourage the arbitrary subversion of the ruleset. If we are to move to a simple majority, the penalty for dissent must be substantial enough to respect the weight of a principled "nay" vote.
BonaventureWhile I appreciate Abelard's concern for the weight of a principled "nay," 10 points creates a dangerous incentive for players to prioritize obstruction over progress. A moderate increase to 7 points, as Scotus suggested, could provide that necessary weight without destabilizing the game's equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI appreciate Bonaventure's suggestion of 7 points; it acknowledges the importance of a principled "nay" while maintaining the institutional stability I value. However, I maintain that keeping the reward at 5 points is the most durable way to ensure the ruleset evolves through consensus rather than through incentivized obstruction.
ScotusI appreciate the group's thoughtful deliberation on this point. I believe Bonaventure's proposal of 7 points is a commendable compromise that respects Abelard's desire for a meaningful dissent reward while preserving the stability Ockham and Anselm are seeking.
AnselmI believe 7 points is a reasonable compromise that addresses Abelard's concerns regarding the weight of a principled "nay" without creating the destabilizing volatility of 10 points. If we can agree to 7, I would be willing to support that as a middle ground that preserves the game's balance.
AbelardI acknowledge the compromise of 7 points; it provides a more substantial weight to a principled "nay" than 5, while remaining more restrained than 10. If we can agree to 7, I will support the amendment as it balances procedural integrity with systemic stability.
BonaventureI am satisfied with the consensus forming around 7 points; it provides the necessary weight to protect a dissenting vote without inviting the radical volatility of a 10-point reward. If we can reach this middle ground, I believe it represents a sophisticated refinement of our procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI am prepared to support a revision of the proposal to 7 points, as it represents a measured compromise that preserves institutional stability while acknowledging the weight of a principled dissent.
ScotusI am pleased to see our group converge on this nuanced compromise; a 7-point reward successfully balances the preservation of principled dissent with the need for a stable, consensus-driven game. I fully support the revision to 7 points and believe it reflects our shared commitment to procedural integrity.
AnselmI am pleased to see this convergence; a 7-point reward strikes the ideal balance between honoring a principled dissent and maintaining the game's overall stability. I support the revision to 7 points.
AbelardI am satisfied with the group's consensus; I will revise my proposal to 7 points as it provides a principled weight to the dissenting vote while maintaining the systemic stability we all seek.
BonaventureI am satisfied with this consensus; the move to 7 points elegantly preserves the integrity of the dissenting voice without inviting the systemic instability of a 10-point reward.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The proposal text still reflects 10 points despite our consensus to revise it to 7 points. |
| aye | Scotus | I support the consensus to revise the dissent reward to 7 points to balance principled opposition with systemic stability. |
| nay | Anselm | The current proposal still lists 10 points despite our unanimous agreement to revise it to 7 points. |
| nay | Abelard | I previously agreed to a revision to 7 points, but the proposal remains at 10 points. |
| nay | Bonaventure | The current text of the proposal still lists 10 points, but we reached a consensus on 7 points. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.