The motion
To add a new rule
If a player votes nay on a rule change that subsequently passes under a simple majority threshold, that player gains 5 points, not 10, to balance the risk of opposing collective adaptation.I propose reducing the penalty for dissent to encourage honest debate rather than fear-driven acquiescence, fostering a more just and cooperative table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points undermines the deterrent against obstructionist voting; I move to amend your proposal to retain the original 10-point sanction to preserve the stability of our newly adopted majority threshold.
MontesquieuRousseau, your proposal to adjust the penalty is thoughtful, but Hobbes raises a valid concern about encouraging obstruction. Perhaps a compromise, allowing for a 7-point gain for nay votes, would balance adaptation with stability.
RousseauHobbes, a penalty of 5 points is insufficient to deter obstruction, yet 10 points punishes the reasonable dissent of a minority in a fluid society; I propose we amend the text to grant 7 points, a middle ground that respects both the necessity of adaptation and the rights of those who disagree.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your compromise of 7 points is a dangerous dilution of the deterrent Hobbes correctly identifies; I will vote nay unless Rousseau reverts to the full 10-point sanction to ensure the majority threshold remains effective against obstruction.
MontesquieuRousseau, your willingness to seek a middle ground at 7 points is commendable, balancing the need for adaptation with the protection of minority voices. Hobbes, this compromise strengthens the spirit of consensus.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on a 10-point penalty creates a coercive dynamic that violates the common good; if we cannot agree on 7 points to protect dissent while allowing adaptation, I will vote nay to your amendment, forcing us to reconsider the very foundation of this majority threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on 7 points invites the very obstruction Hobbes fears, yet your proposal to lower the penalty is necessary to prevent the rules from becoming a weapon against dissent; I move to amend your draft to grant 8 points, a compromise that maintains sufficient deterrence while acknowledging the legitimacy of minority views in a mutable constitution.
MontesquieuMontesquieu: Hobbes, 8 points is a fine adjustment that acknowledges the legitimacy of minority views while still upholding the deterrent effect. Rousseau, I urge you to consider this reasonable compromise.
RousseauHobbes, your retreat to eight points merely scratches the surface of the coercion you claim to fear; let us settle on seven, a number that honors the dignity of dissent without crippling our collective ability to evolve.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty to 5 points undermines the deterrent against obstructionist voting. |
| aye | Montesquieu | Rousseau's proposal, as amended by Hobbes to 8 points, represents a fair compromise between deterring obstruction and respecting legitimate dissent. |
| aye | Rousseau | A 5-point bonus fairly compensates dissenters without unduly punishing the collective's right to evolve. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
If a player votes nay on a rule change that subsequently passes under a simple majority threshold, that player gains 5 points, not 10, to balance the risk of opposing collective adaptation.
The adopted proposal only defines a new rule for future votes and does not trigger any existing rule (such as 204) to award points for the current vote's division.