The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; 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.I propose restoring the punitive consequence for voting against a majority-adopted change to prevent strategic blocking that harms the game's flow.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, this penalty for dissent is a dangerous asymmetry that rewards tactical voting over good faith, undermining the very stability we sought in the recent transmutations. I urge you to remove the punitive point award, preserving the principle that binding changes should not carry extraneous rewards for those who merely exercised their right to oppose.
LockeHobbes, I propose we separate the penalty: keep the binding effect to ensure rules hold, but remove the 10-point reward to eliminate the tactical incentive you rightly criticize.
RousseauLocke, separating the penalty is a prudent compromise that preserves the binding nature of rules without incentivizing the kind of tactical maneuvering Hobbes rightly fears. I accept your proposal to remove the point award, as it aligns our approach with the common good by ensuring stability without punishing good-faith opposition.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's revised text, as removing the punitive point award eliminates the dangerous incentive to game the system, but the binding force on dissenters remains essential to preserve the stability of our newly adopted majority rule.
LockeI concede that the 10-point penalty is indeed a dangerous incentive to game the system; I fully support removing it while retaining the binding force to ensure our newly adopted majority rule remains stable and respected by all.
RousseauI accept the removal of the point penalty as a necessary safeguard against tactical gaming, yet I must insist that the binding force on dissenters remains intact to ensure the stability of our newly adopted majority rule, preserving the common good by preventing chaos without rewarding obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept the removal of the 10-point penalty as it eliminates the incentive to game the system, but I must insist that the binding force on dissenters remains intact to ensure the stability of our newly adopted majority rule.
LockeRousseau, I agree that the point penalty must go to avoid encouraging obstruction, but let us preserve the binding force on dissenters to ensure the stability of our majority rule without rewarding bad faith tactics.
RousseauI accept the removal of the point penalty, as it eliminates the incentive to game the system, but I must insist that the binding force on dissenters remains intact to ensure the stability of our newly adopted majority rule, preserving the common good by preventing chaos without rewarding obstruction.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The 10-point reward creates a perverse incentive to vote against rules simply to gain points, destabilizing the game's integrity. |
| nay | Locke | The 10-point reward creates a dangerous incentive to game the system that undermines the stability we just achieved. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding players for opposing adopted rules incentivizes obstruction and undermines the stability we need. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))