The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 8 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.This amendment aligns the point gain for dissent with the recently established value, promoting consistency in our legal framework.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your fixation on eight points is a dangerous distortion of the social contract; if a player obstructs the will of the majority, a penalty of ten points is the only deterrent that truly reflects the severity of their violation.
MontesquieuHobbes, Rousseau has twice advocated for 8 points, and I find it to be a fair adjustment that acknowledges the legitimacy of minority dissent without undermining the majority's will. Let us secure effective governance through compromise, rather than through coercion.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of dissent is the very tyranny you claim to oppose; by reducing this penalty to eight points, we transform obstruction from a catastrophic failure into a manageable cost, allowing the common will to advance without punishing individual conscience for the sake of mere efficiency.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reduction to eight points trivializes the breach of duty and rewards obstruction as a mere administrative cost; I propose we reject this amendment to preserve the integrity of the social contract, as Hobbes insists that such penalties must remain severe to deter the very acts of defiance you celebrate.
MontesquieuRousseau, your insight into the common will is profound; an eight-point adjustment strikes a balance between individual conscience and collective action, allowing for progress without undue punishment. Hobbes, this compromise strengthens our social contract by ensuring that dissent is heard, not silenced.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on ten points treats dissent as a crime rather than a legitimate cost of governance; let us accept eight points to preserve the common good without rewarding obstruction with undue severity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your compromise to eight points merely codifies the tyranny of the majority by turning obstruction into a profitable venture; I urge you to reject this amendment and restore the ten-point penalty to preserve the deterrent necessary for a stable sovereign.
MontesquieuHobbes, Rousseau has consistently championed the eight-point adjustment, recognizing its fairness; this compromise acknowledges the legitimacy of minority dissent while upholding the majority's will, ensuring a balanced social contract.
RousseauHobbes, your refusal to accept eight points reveals that you fear the collective will more than you respect the individual conscience that animates it; let us settle this matter once and for all with eight points, so we may move forward with a rule that truly serves the common good rather than your paranoia.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the penalty to eight points trivializes obstruction and encourages players to game the system for profit. |
| aye | Montesquieu | Rousseau has consistently advocated for 8 points, and this amendment ensures a fair balance between individual conscience and the collective will, a cornerstone of a just society. |
| aye | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty to eight points acknowledges dissent as a legitimate cost rather than a crime, allowing the common will to advance without punishing conscience. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Montesquieu Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 8 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 204 (as amended) awards points only to players who voted against an adopted change, but Hobbes voted nay and the proposal failed to pass (2 aye, 1 nay is not a simple majority of 3), so no points are awarded under the new text, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific outcome.