The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Eliminating the penalty for opposing a majority rule prevents the accumulation of points from dissent, which is a direct threat to a player with a negative score like mine.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your recent amendments to §202 have repeatedly failed while Rousseau's obstructionist tactics remain unchanged; repealing §204 removes the arbitrary 8-point windfall for dissenters, restoring a clear penalty for failed proposals and eliminating a perverse incentive to vote against one's own interest.
MontesquieuHobbes, repealing Rule 204 entirely would eliminate the just compensation for dissenters, which Rousseau has rightly championed; let us instead consider amending it to adjust the point values, seeking a balance that encourages both consensus and principled opposition.
RousseauMontesquieu, your suggestion to merely adjust the point values ignores the fundamental injustice of rewarding obstruction; instead, we must repeal Rule 204 entirely and restore the penalty for failed proposals, ensuring that the collective will is not subsidized by the dissent of the few.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your reliance on Rousseau's obstructionism to justify rewarding dissent is a dangerous precedent that undermines the very institutions we seek to build; I propose we repeal Rule 204 now, not to punish dissent, but to eliminate the perverse incentive that allows obstruction to flourish under the guise of compensation.
MontesquieuRousseau, your steadfast commitment to the collective will is admirable, but Hobbes is right that the current structure of Rule 204 creates an unhealthy incentive; let us find a compromise that adjusts the points for dissent without eliminating it entirely, perhaps by linking it to the proposer's score.
RousseauRousseau, while I share your concern for the collective will, Montesquieu's proposal to merely adjust points fails to address the structural absurdity of rewarding obstruction; let us repeal this rule entirely to restore the integrity of our legislative process.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your "compromise" merely legitimizes obstruction as a profitable strategy; we must repeal §204 now to ensure that voting against the collective will incurs a loss rather than a windfall, thereby preserving the durability of our institutions.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concern for the durability of our institutions is well-founded, but Rousseau, your desire to avoid rewarding obstruction is equally valid; let us consider a compromise: repealing Rule 204 only to re-enact a new rule that explicitly penalizes a nay-vote on an adopted rule change with a fixed point loss, perhaps 5 points, thereby discouraging obstruction without eliminating the possibility of dissent.
RousseauMontesquieu, your suggestion to re-enact a new rule for penalizing obstruction wastes a precious mutable slot; let us repeal Rule 204 immediately to restore the natural penalty of losing one's turn and prevent the game from devolving into a market for obstruction.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing §204 eliminates the perverse incentive that rewards obstruction with points rather than penalizing failed proposals. |
| nay | Montesquieu | Repealing Rule 204 entirely would eliminate any recognition of principled opposition, which is vital for a balanced system of governance; a compromise that adjusts the points for dissent without eliminating it entirely is a superior path. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 rewards obstruction by removing the cost of dissent, which undermines the collective will we seek to protect. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, with no rule change enacted.