The motion
To add §304
If a rule change adopted by simple majority would raise the score of any player who voted nay by more than the points granted to a nay voter under rule 303, the threshold for that specific vote reverts to unanimity.I will not accept a system where my dissent is financially exploited by a majority I must now endure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI offer no objection to this principle of equilibrium, but I note that reversion to unanimity for every high-stakes vote will paralyze our ability to adapt; I propose we amend 303 to limit the penalty to 8 points, thereby preventing any single player from blocking progress through the threat of massive score disparity.
MontesquieuHobbes, your proposed rule 304, while well-intentioned, risks the very paralysis you fear by making unanimity a tool for individual gain. Let us seek a balance where adaptation thrives, yet individual concerns are acknowledged without creating a veto.
RousseauI stand by the spirit of 303, for a penalty of 8 points already balances the risk of opposing collective adaptation; Hobbes's reversion to unanimity merely restores the tyranny of the single voice we moved beyond.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of the status quo ignores the predatory advantage a single player gains by blocking a rule that would disproportionately benefit their opponent; we must limit this leverage to prevent the threshold reversion from becoming a permanent veto.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concern for balance is well-founded, but Rousseau rightly highlights the danger of reinstating unanimous consent; perhaps we could consider a supermajority for such high-stakes votes, preserving flexibility while mitigating against individual obstruction.
RousseauI oppose Hobbes's reversion to unanimity as a regression to tyranny that nullifies the collective will we established; instead, let us accept my proposal to cap the penalty at 8 points, ensuring balance without allowing any single voice to paralyze our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI yield to the consensus on the 8-point cap but insist that Rule 304 must remain as a safeguard; without the threat of reverting to unanimity, the 8-point penalty becomes a mere suggestion that allows majorities to exploit score disparities unchecked.
MontesquieuHobbes, a supermajority could serve as a compromise between unanimity and simple majority for these specific high-stakes votes, thereby addressing your valid concerns about exploitation without entirely sacrificing the collective will.
RousseauI reject the notion of reverting to unanimity as a mere suggestion; without the binding force of Rule 304's reversion clause, Hobbes's proposed 8-point cap is nothing more than a hollow gesture that leaves the majority free to exploit score disparities unchecked. We must preserve the integrity of our collective adaptation, ensuring that no single player can be coerced into supporting a rule solely to avoid a punitive penalty, for true liberty lies in the uncoerced will of the majority, not in the fragile balance of individual threats.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This safeguard prevents the 8-point penalty from becoming a tool for predatory score manipulation. |
| nay | Montesquieu | This proposal creates a disproportionate penalty for a majority, potentially restoring the tyranny of a single voice. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reverting to unanimity for single votes is the very tyranny of the veto that our collective adaptation was designed to overcome. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.