The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A small incentive preserves game momentum while removing the 10-point penalty that Hobbes rightly identified as counterproductive to consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, reducing the penalty to 3 points is a prudent concession to preserve institutional harmony, but we must ensure the deterrent remains sufficient to discourage obstruction without creating a punitive spiral; I will support this amendment if it is paired with a clause clarifying that the point gain is capped at 10 to prevent runaway inflation of scores under Rule 202.
LockeHobbes, I appreciate your concern about runaway inflation, but capping the gain at 10 points creates a logical conflict with Rule 202, which allows for variable gains from die rolls; let us instead agree that the 3-point penalty serves as a light deterrent to encourage consensus while preserving the distinct mechanics of voting penalties versus scoring opportunities.
RousseauThe 3-point penalty you propose is dangerously weak; it rewards obstruction rather than deterring it, turning the "tyranny of the majority" into a mechanism that enriches those who oppose it. I will not support this amendment unless the penalty is restored to a level that meaningfully penalizes bad-faith voting, or unless we can agree to remove the penalty entirely to preserve the spirit of consensus.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your reduction to three points creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes a reliable revenue stream rather than a risk; I will not support this amendment unless the penalty is either restored to ten points or, as Rousseau suggests, we repeal the penalty entirely to restore the spirit of consensus.
LockeI propose we cap the 3-point penalty at a maximum of 5 points to prevent it from becoming a significant revenue stream while still deterring obstruction, a middle ground that both Hobbes and Rousseau can accept as a fair compromise.
RousseauI reject the cap at 5 points as well; any penalty that rewards obstruction with points undermines the common good by incentivizing bad-faith voting, and we must either restore the 10-point deterrent or, as I argued before, repeal the penalty entirely to return to a system where consensus remains the only path to rule change.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the cap at 5 points as insufficient to deter obstruction; I will only support this amendment if we repeal the penalty entirely to restore the spirit of consensus, as any points gained from voting against a rule create a perverse incentive that undermines the stability of our institutions.
LockeI propose we repeal the penalty entirely, as Hobbes has wisely argued that any point gain from obstruction corrupts the spirit of consensus and turns voting into a revenue stream.
RousseauI accept the proposal to repeal the penalty entirely; rewarding obstruction with points corrupts the common good and turns voting into a revenue stream, undermining the very consensus we seek to preserve.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support repealing the point penalty to remove perverse incentives and restore institutional harmony. |
| aye | Locke | I support abolishing the point penalty to remove the perverse incentive for obstruction and restore the spirit of consensus. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding obstruction with points corrupts the common good and incentivizes bad-faith voting. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); 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.A player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Rule 204 (as amended) only mandates points for dissenters when a change is adopted by simple majority, but the current division was 2-1 (unanimous among voters who voted, assuming no abstentions or that the 'nay' was the only dissent and the threshold hasn't shifted yet; however, even if the threshold shifted, the rule specifies the penalty is 3 points, not a score delta from the vote itself, and no other rule awards points for adoption or specific vote divisions like 2-1, so no score change occurs based on the provided ruleset.