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.This amendment restores consistency to the scoring of dissenting votes, as intended by Rousseau's original proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your initial proposal for 7 points was an arbitrary cap that rewarded obstruction rather than enforcing order; we must codify the true cost of dissent. I join Montesquieu to amend Rule 303, raising the penalty to 10 points to ensure that voting nay against the collective will carries a price commensurate with the instability it creates.
MontesquieuHobbes, your proposal is well-reasoned, and I commend your commitment to stability; however, Rousseau's consistent advocacy for 8 points, which I supported in turn 7, suggests a compromise that balances dissent and order.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the price of dissent for the cost of justice; raising the penalty to ten points is not stability but coercion that silences the minority's voice. Let us remain at eight points, a fair acknowledgment of the harm done by obstruction without crushing the freedom to disagree.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesHobbes, I yield to your wisdom, and I commend your proposal; however, given the precedent of your own defeat in Turn 8 and the current consensus around eight points, I must oppose this amendment to preserve the delicate balance of our new order.
MontesquieuRousseau, I believe 10 points is a just penalty, acknowledging the importance of collective progress; however, I believe 8 points is a fair compromise that respects the freedom of dissent.
RousseauMontesquieu, your vacillation between ten and eight points betrays the very stability you claim to champion; let us settle on eight points, a penalty severe enough to deter obstruction yet light enough to preserve the freedom essential to a just society.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your vacillation on the penalty amount reveals a weakness that invites future obstruction; I insist the penalty remains 10 points to deter those who would use the majority threshold to rewrite the laws for personal gain.
MontesquieuHobbes, your commitment to the 10-point penalty shows a strong dedication to stability, but Rousseau's consistent advocacy for 8 points, which I supported in turn 7, represents a balanced compromise that respects both order and individual liberty.
RousseauHobbes, your fixation on ten points ignores the reality of our current balance; if you oppose the eight-point compromise, you will lose this vote and surrender your turn to gain only six points while I advance my score. Accept the eight points as a just penalty for obstruction, or let the majority proceed without your interference.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I vote nay to reject a rule change I do not support, preserving my right to dissent even at the cost of points. |
| aye | Montesquieu | Hobbes's commitment to 10 points demonstrates a dedication to stability, and this aligns with the spirit of collective progress. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject a penalty that rewards tyranny over the freedom to dissent. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points and every other player loses 10 points when a proposal is defeated, as no rule awards points for voting nay on a defeated proposal.