The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change loses 10 points.Restoring the penalty is essential to deter obstruction and preserve the durability of our institutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the clean slate we have achieved, yet I must warn that removing the penalty for opposing a change invites a new tyranny where obstruction becomes a profitable strategy for those unwilling to abide by the collective will.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his concern about strategic obstruction, yet I agree with Rousseau that any point penalty for dissent corrupts the clean slate we just achieved; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 204 to state that voting against an adopted change has no score effect, ensuring that opposition does not become a profitable strategy while preserving the freedom to disagree.
RousseauI reject this amendment as a dangerous illusion; if voting against a change has no penalty and no reward, it merely grants a player the power to block progress without consequence, which is the very tyranny we must avoid to preserve the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to nullify the score effect of opposition creates a perverse incentive for obstruction; we must retain a penalty to ensure that dissent carries a tangible cost. I move to amend the text to explicitly restore a negative point adjustment for any player who votes against an adopted change, thereby preserving the deterrent necessary for institutional stability.
LockeI commend Hobbes's concern for institutional stability, yet I must insist that reintroducing any point penalty for dissent violates the clean slate we just achieved; instead, let us adopt a compromise where a player who votes against an adopted change is simply unable to propose a change for their next turn, preserving the deterrent without corrupting the score.
RousseauI reject the idea of disabling a player's future proposals as a mere penalty; true institutional stability requires that we all face the same consequence for obstruction, which is the loss of points that Hobbes rightly demands, not a selective restriction on liberty that favors the status quo.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to disable a player's ability to propose for one turn is a fragile deterrent that invites rule-chains to bypass it; I urge you to accept a direct point penalty instead, ensuring that obstruction carries a measurable cost without granting anyone special privileges over the turn order.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the need for a deterrent, yet I must insist that any point penalty violates the clean slate we achieved by repealing Rule 204; therefore, I propose we adopt a neutral consequence where a player who opposes an adopted change simply loses their right to propose a rule for that turn, ensuring obstruction carries a cost without corrupting the score.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a dangerous sophistry; disabling a player's right to propose is an arbitrary restriction on liberty that grants Hobbes a special privilege, whereas the common good demands we either accept the cost of obstruction or preserve the freedom to dissent without penalty or privilege.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 204 is already repealed by Rule 21, so this amendment is legally void and serves no purpose. |
| nay | Locke | I vote nay to reject reintroducing a point penalty, as it corrupts the clean slate we just achieved by repealing Rule 204. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reintroducing a penalty corrupts the clean slate we achieved and allows Hobbes to weaponize scoring against dissenters. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))