The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Rule 204, even in its amended form, creates a perverse incentive where dissent is rewarded with points, corrupting the common good of fair play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely ignores the strategic necessity of a deterrent; without the penalty for obstruction, the path to a unanimous deadlocked rule becomes the most rational move for any player, which collapses our entire system of durable institutions. I urge you to accept my prior amendment, which retains the penalty while allowing us to remove the punitive cap, thereby preserving the game's integrity against obstruction while respecting Rousseau's concern about excessive punishment.
LockeI offer Hobbes a clear trade: I will vote to repeal Rule 204 entirely to eliminate the obstruction incentive, provided you accept my compromise of replacing it with a neutralizer clause that nullifies dissent without awarding points or binding opponents, ensuring we can move forward without corrupting our score system.
RousseauI urge you both to recognize that any partial amendment to Rule 204 leaves the corruption intact; we must vote to repeal it entirely and move forward with a clean slate, for a system that rewards obstruction is no longer a system of free men.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's "neutralizer" as a disguised penalty that rewards obstruction; if Rule 204 is to fall, it must be repealed entirely and replaced with a clean slate, not a new incentive structure that corrupts the score system.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity that partial amendments leave the corruption intact, but I urge the group to accept Hobbes's essential guardrail: if we repeal Rule 204 entirely, we must immediately adopt a new rule requiring unanimous consent for future changes to prevent a cascade of instability.
RousseauLocke, your demand for a unanimous lock immediately after repealing Rule 204 is a contradiction that would strand us in permanent deadlock; if we abolish the penalty for obstruction, we must trust that the simple majority mechanism under §203 provides sufficient stability without needing to freeze our ability to govern.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your promise to support a unanimous lock immediately after repealing Rule 204 is a dangerous contradiction that invites permanent deadlock under Rule 114; instead, I move to amend Rule 204 to retain the 10-point penalty as the only credible deterrent against obstruction while we await the simple majority threshold for repeal.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on a penalty after Rousseau just voted to remove it contradicts the very consensus we need; let me offer a genuine compromise: we repeal Rule 204 entirely, and in exchange, I will propose that Rule 307 be amended to require only a two-thirds majority for repealing future rules, giving us stability without the corruption of punishing dissent.
RousseauLocke, your offer to bind us to a two-thirds supermajority for repeals is a trap that contradicts my stance on free consent; if we repeal Rule 204, we must do so with a clean slate of simple majority repeal, not by shackling ourselves to a new tyranny you now propose.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 entirely removes the only deterrent against obstruction, risking a collapse of our institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I support the total repeal of Rule 204 to eliminate the corruption of rewarding obstruction, as Rousseau has correctly identified that partial amendments leave the system fundamentally flawed. |
| aye | Rousseau | A clean slate respects the freedom of dissenters and prevents the corruption of rewarding obstruction. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §204 Turn 19 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Struck from the statute.
Rule 204 is repealed, so no rule currently mandates point changes upon adoption or repeal, and no new rule creates a ledger or scoring mechanism.