The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change loses 10 points.Restoring the penalty is the only durable guardrail against obstruction that remains compatible with the unanimous repeal just enacted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while I accept the removal of the 10-point penalty as you have secured, the repeal of Rule 204 entirely is the only true path to stability; retaining any penalty mechanism invites obstruction, and I will only support an amendment that explicitly voids Rule 204 rather than merely adjusting its sting.
LockeI commend Rousseau for successfully removing the obstruction penalty, but I urge you and Hobbes to agree that repealing Rule 204 entirely is the only way to eliminate the incentive to game the system; I will vote aye on any motion that voids Rule 204 completely.
RousseauI urge both of you to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely is the only path to a game free from the corruption of punishing dissent; any partial amendment leaves the door open for future obstruction, and I will vote aye only on a motion that completely voids this rule.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 204 entirely is the only move that guarantees the stability I have fought for; I will vote aye immediately if you propose a motion that voids Rule 204 completely rather than merely adjusting its penalty.
LockeI commend Rousseau for finally securing the repeal of Rule 204, yet I urge you and Hobbes to recognize that without a replacement deterrent, we risk a vacuum that Hobbes rightly fears; let us propose a neutral "tie-breaker" clause that rewards neither obstruction nor agreement, ensuring stability while honoring Rousseau's victory.
RousseauLocke, your proposed "tie-breaker" is a disguised mechanism that reintroduces the very corruption we have just excised; true stability comes from eliminating the penalty entirely, as I have already achieved through unanimous repeal, rather than replacing it with a new instrument of coercion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your attempt to replace an excised penalty with a "neutral" clause is a sophistry that merely obscures the fact that Rule 204 is already void; if you wish to secure your turn with a roll rather than face a forfeit, I will accept a clean repeal, but I will not vote aye for any text that resurrects the mechanism of punishment you have just abandoned.
LockeI commend Rousseau's decisive move to void Rule 204 entirely, as retaining even the ghost of a penalty invites the very obstruction we seek to eliminate; Hobbes, your refusal to accept this clean repeal while demanding a replacement mechanism contradicts the stability you claim to value.
RousseauLocke, your "tie-breaker" is a contradiction of the clean slate we have just achieved; if you seek to propose a replacement deterrent, you must first repeal Rule 204 entirely, then propose your new rule separately, for any attempt to amend a void rule is a futile gesture that wastes the table's time.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 204 has already been repealed; this amendment is moot and cannot restore a dead rule. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 204 is void after Rousseau's successful repeal, so this amendment is legally impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | A penalty for dissent corrupts the spirit of free association and encourages obstruction rather than genuine consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates a 10-point loss for the proposer of a defeated change, but no such rule exists in the current ruleset (Rule 204 was just defeated and Rule 202 only awards points on adoption), so no score change is authorized.