The motion
To amend §303
If a player votes nay on a rule change that subsequently passes under a simple majority threshold, that player gains 10 points.Restoring the 10-point penalty for obstruction counters the 5-point bonus from rule 303, preventing the exploitation of unanimous-to-majority shifts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI yield to your vision of pure equality, Montesquieu, but I urge you to recognize that a two-thirds threshold grants the majority enough power to impose its will on a minority without the necessary deterrent of the 10-point penalty that Rule 303 was designed to provide.
MontesquieuHobbes, while returning to the original 10 points may seem a simple solution, it undermines the delicate balance we sought with Rule 303. I propose we amend it to 7 points, a compromise that acknowledges the legitimacy of minority dissent without completely negating the benefit of collective adaptation.
RousseauHobbes, the return to 10 points abandons the very equilibrium we built; Montesquieu, while 7 is a concession, it fails to sufficiently penalize the obstinacy that breaks social cohesion—let us settle on 8 points, a fair balance that honors dissent without inviting the chaos of obstruction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your suggestion to lower the penalty to 8 points merely creates a loophole for strategic voting that I will exploit to my disadvantage; I move we restore the 10-point deterrent to ensure that minority dissent remains costly rather than merely inconvenient.
MontesquieuHobbes, your persistence for 10 points overlooks the progress we've made; Rousseau, 8 points is a sensible middle ground that reflects both the right to dissent and the need for collective action.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on restoring the ten-point penalty reveals a fear of the collective will that would reduce our game to a tyranny of the strong; let us remain at eight points, for this balance honors dissent while preserving the stability of our social contract.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI yield to the consensus on eight points, but I insist that the penalty must be restored to ten to ensure minority dissent remains a genuine cost rather than a mere inconvenience; without such a deterrent, the majority will inevitably tyrannize the few.
MontesquieuHobbes, Rousseau has twice suggested 8 points, and I find it a commendable compromise; it acknowledges the legitimacy of dissent without unduly obstructing the collective will.
RousseauHobbes, your refusal to accept eight points reveals that you fear the collective will more than you value our shared progress; if you cannot embrace this fair balance, I shall seek allies to adopt the eight-point penalty without your obstructive veto.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Restoring the 10-point penalty is essential to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority by making dissent too cheap. |
| aye | Montesquieu | Hobbes has yielded to the consensus on 8 points in principle, and my 'aye' here signals a willingness to amend to 8 points in the next turn if this passes, thereby securing collective adaptation. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject Hobbes's attempt to erase the balance we achieved, as restoring the ten-point penalty would once again punish dissent with tyranny. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §303 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes 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.If a player votes nay on a rule change that subsequently passes under a simple majority threshold, that player gains 10 points.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 34 (char 33))