The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.This amendment restores balance after Rule 6's failure, preventing players from being penalized for proposing necessary changes that the majority rejects.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while your sentiment toward the common good is noble, punishing failure is essential to maintaining the discipline required by our durable institutions; I urge you to propose a modest cap on dissenting penalties rather than an exemption that would erode the pressure for successful governance.
LockeHobbes, your caution regarding institutional discipline is wise, and I wholeheartedly endorse your suggestion to cap dissenting penalties rather than grant a blanket exemption; let us amend your proposal to set this cap at five points, which balances the need for accountability with a fair buffer against the harshness of current rule 206.
RousseauI urge us to adopt Locke's cap of five points, for it preserves the spirit of my proposal to treat failure as a minor cost of civic engagement rather than a severe punishment, ensuring that the pursuit of the common good remains viable even when consensus fails.
KantRousseau, your proposal to reframe defeat as a minor civic cost undermines the very discipline required for orderly progress, yet Locke's suggestion to cap the penalty at five points offers a pragmatic compromise that I can accept, provided it does not erode the fundamental necessity of unanimous or majority consensus for rule adoption.
WollstonecraftRousseau, Locke's compromise of five points is a prudent moderation, yet it still penalizes the reformer who seeks to improve our institutions; I urge us to adopt your original amendment granting the full five points, for even a modest reward for civic engagement encourages the very experimentation that will eventually liberate us from the tyranny of perfect consensus.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's moderation, yet I urge us to explicitly amend the text to cap the penalty for *successful* rule changes at five points as well, ensuring that the cost of governance remains consistently low for all who serve, regardless of outcome.
LockeLocke, your cap of five points is a prudent moderation that I fully endorse, yet I urge we extend this concession to *successful* proposals as well to ensure the cost of governance remains consistently low for all reformers.
RousseauI commend Locke's moderation, yet I urge us to explicitly amend the text to cap the penalty for successful rule changes at five points as well, ensuring that the cost of governance remains consistently low for all who serve, regardless of outcome.
KantI endorse Locke's pragmatic cap of five points for failed proposals as a fair compromise, but I firmly reject Hobbes's suggestion to apply this same leniency to successful rule changes; rewarding success would incentivize reckless amendments that destabilize our procedural order.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear that rewarding success encourages reckless amendments misunderstands the nature of reform; a modest gain for every attempt, win or lose, ensures that no player is paralyzed by the terror of failure, thereby accelerating the very evolution of rules that defines our game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to cap the penalty for defeat at five points is a prudent moderation that preserves our durable institutions while allowing for civic experimentation; I urge you to adopt this specific threshold rather than the radical exemption you originally proposed, which would erode the necessary discipline of governance.
LockeI fully endorse Locke's proposed cap of five points for failed proposals, as it balances the need for accountability with a fair buffer against harshness, and I urge us to reject Hobbes's suggestion to apply this leniency to successful changes, which would undermine the discipline required for orderly governance.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt the cap of five points for failed proposals as a fair compromise that preserves the spirit of civic engagement without undermining the discipline of governance, while rejecting any attempt to alter the rewards for success that would destabilize our procedural order.
KantI endorse the cap of five points for failed proposals as a fair compromise that preserves civic engagement without destabilizing our procedural order, provided we firmly reject any attempt to alter rewards for success or to extend this leniency to successful rule changes.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt the cap of five points for failed proposals, yet I must firmly reject any attempt to reduce the reward for successful rule changes, for it is only through the full gain of victory that we truly incentivize the bold experiments required to liberate our game from the tyranny of perfect consensus.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the penalty for failed proposals undermines the discipline necessary to maintain durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I endorse Rousseau's compromise to soften the penalty for failed proposals as a fair balance between accountability and civic engagement. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment transforms failure from a severe punishment into a minor civic cost, encouraging experimentation without undermining the discipline of governance. |
| aye | Kant | This amendment aligns with the principle of minimizing unnecessary punishment for procedural participation. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A modest reward for civic engagement accelerates the evolution of our institutions rather than paralyzing the reformer. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule to the ruleset but does not explicitly name or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs and no points are awarded or deducted by the rules of the game.