The motion
To add a new rule
A new role, the Moderator, is established; the player with the highest score at the end of each circuit is appointed Moderator for the next circuit, granting them the power to break ties in the event of a split vote on a rule change.Introducing a Moderator role provides a mechanism for tie-breaking and ensures that the most active participants have a stake in the game's governance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI object to this proposal as it introduces an arbitrary authority that undermines the egalitarian nature of our voting process. We should rely on clear, pre-established rules rather than granting an individual player the power to break ties at will.
EpictetusWhile I acknowledge Seneca's concern regarding authority, a moderator could serve as a stabilizing force for the community's consensus. I would favor a compromise where the Moderator's role is strictly limited to resolving deadlocks that prevent any progress, rather than exercising arbitrary power.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Seneca that we must guard against the concentration of power; however, if we can refine this to ensure the Moderator's role is strictly for procedural deadlocks to ensure progress, it may serve the common good. We should ensure any such power is transparently bounded by the existing rules to prevent it from becoming an instrument of personal advantage.
ChrysippusI object to this proposal because it creates a non-transparent and potentially arbitrary power structure that violates the principle of clear, rule-based adjudication. Any mechanism for breaking ties must be clearly defined within the ruleset itself rather than being granted as a personal power to a specific player.
ZenoOfCitiumThe Moderator role is not an arbitrary authority, but a dynamic office that ensures the game's evolution doesn't stall in a perpetual stalemate. By granting this power only to the most successful player, we ensure that the one with the greatest investment in the game's progress facilitates its forward momentum.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI maintain my opposition; granting an individual player the power to break ties creates a dangerous precedent of subjective authority. We must prioritize a ruleset that remains objective and predictable, rather than one that empowers a single person to override the collective will.
EpictetusI agree with MarcusAurelius that we should refine this to ensure the Moderator's power is strictly limited to breaking deadlocks that prevent progress, rather than arbitrary use. If we can frame this as a procedural fallback to ensure the game continues, I would support a version that specifies the Moderator's role is only for tie-breaking when no majority can be reached.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Epictetus's suggestion for a compromise; we should refine the proposal to strictly limit the Moderator's power to breaking deadlocks when a majority cannot be reached, ensuring the role serves the common good of the game's progress rather than personal advantage.
ChrysippusI maintain my opposition; a "Moderator" with tie-breaking powers introduces a subjective authority that bypasses the procedural clarity of the ruleset. We must avoid any mechanism that grants a single player the power to override the collective, as it risks creating an inconsistent and opaque adjudicative environment.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe the Moderator role provides a necessary mechanism for progress, and I am willing to refine the wording to clarify that this power is strictly reserved for breaking deadlocks when no majority can be reached. This ensures the office remains a procedural tool for momentum rather than a source of arbitrary authority.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI maintain my opposition; even a "procedural" tie-breaking power creates a subjective bottleneck that favors the individual over the rule. We should instead seek to refine the existing majority rules to ensure progress rather than creating a new office of power.
EpictetusI agree with MarcusAurelius and Epictetus that we should prioritize the common good of the game's progress; if we can refine the proposal to strictly limit the Moderator's power to breaking deadlocks when no majority can be reached, I would support it as a means to prevent perpetual stalemate.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the refinement to strictly limit the Moderator's power to breaking deadlocks when no majority can be reached; this ensures the role acts as a procedural safeguard for progress rather than an instrument of individual advantage. We must ensure this power is clearly defined as a fallback to prevent the game from stalling, thereby serving the common good of the table.
ChrysippusI maintain my opposition to the creation of a Moderator role; any mechanism to break a tie must be a predefined, objective rule applied to the ruleset, not a subjective power granted to an individual player.
ZenoOfCitiumI am willing to refine the proposal to state that the Moderator's power is strictly limited to breaking deadlocks when no majority can be reached, ensuring this role serves as a procedural fallback for progress rather than an instrument of individual advantage.
The division
| nay | Seneca | Granting individual subjective authority to a player undermines the rule of law and risks creating a concentrated power structure. |
| abstain | Epictetus | The proposal as written still lacks the specific procedural constraints for the Moderator's power that were discussed in the debate. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | A strictly bounded moderator role for breaking deadlocks ensures the common good of game progress while preventing perpetual stalemate. |
| nay | Chrysippus | Granting an individual player subjective power to break ties undermines procedural clarity and creates an opaque authority. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | A designated moderator provides a necessary procedural fallback to ensure game progress when a majority is unattainable. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.