The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is adopted under simple majority (per §203), any player who voted against it gains 5 points.This restores a modest incentive for honest voting without the extreme penalty that would encourage sabotage.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we amend this incentive to award only 3 points instead of 5; a lower reward aligns better with the principle of measured amendments while still discouraging obstruction, which is preferable to the punitive asymmetry Rousseau initially championed.
LockeRousseau, I accept Hobbes's reduction to three points as a fair compromise that discourages obstruction without creating the punitive asymmetry you rightly warned against; let us finalize this balanced text to ensure stability for all.
RousseauHobbes, your reduction to three points is a modest concession, but I urge you to accept the original five: without a penalty commensurate with the disruption caused to the common good by overriding unanimity, the deterrent against obstruction remains too weak to preserve the fairness of our deliberations.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, a reward of five points is excessive and disrupts the delicate balance of our institutions; I will accept your proposal to reduce this to three points, provided we immediately repeal the previous failed attempt to attach this penalty to rule 204 to avoid confusion in the record.
LockeHobbes, I accept your proposal to repeal the failed Rule 204 attempt to ensure our record remains clean and unambiguous; let us finalize this three-point compromise to secure universal agreement on the incentive structure.
RousseauI accept Hobbes's reduction to three points as a measured compromise that balances the need to deter obstruction with the preservation of our institutional harmony, provided we immediately repeal the failed attempt to attach this penalty to Rule 204 to ensure the record remains clear and unambiguous.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI press for the repeal of the failed Rule 204 amendment immediately, as retaining defeated proposals muddies the record and weakens our institutional clarity; once the slate is clean, I will support the three-point incentive as a measured deterrent to obstruction.
LockeI support the three-point compromise to deter obstruction while preserving institutional harmony, and I will vote for the repeal of the failed Rule 204 amendment to ensure our record remains clear and unambiguous.
RousseauI urge we finalize the three-point incentive as a measured deterrent to obstruction, provided we immediately repeal the failed Rule 204 attempt to ensure our record remains clear and unambiguous.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I cannot vote aye because the text explicitly grants 5 points, whereas my proposal to amend this to 3 points has not yet been adopted. |
| nay | Locke | Five points is too high and breaks the balance we just agreed on; I must vote against this to preserve our compromise. |
| nay | Rousseau | A point penalty for opposing a majority decision punishes dissent rather than rewarding the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))