The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority gains 20 points, not 10 as currently specified.The penalty for opposing a change should be higher to discourage obstructionist behavior and accelerate consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current penalty under Rule 204 is insufficient to deter obstructionists from wasting our precious mutable slots on frivolous amendments; increasing the penalty to 20 points will enforce the durability of our institutions by making defection economically catastrophic for all.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the risk of frivolous amendments, but I propose we compromise: increasing the penalty to 20 points is too severe and could trigger the stalemate condition under §213, so let's settle on 15 points to deter obstruction while preserving the game's viability.
RousseauI propose we reject this entire line of amendment to Rule 204, for no matter whether the penalty is 10, 15, or 20 points, adding a reward for dissent fundamentally distorts the nature of our collective deliberation and threatens to freeze the game under §213; let us instead focus on preserving the spirit of fair play that binds us all.
KantI reject this amendment in its entirety; to reward dissent is to punish the very procedure that legitimizes the rules, and since I would not vote for it if placed in your seat, it violates the principle of reciprocal justice required of any fair law. PASS
WollstonecraftA penalty for dissent is not justice, but a tyranny that silences the necessary friction of reform; we must preserve the right to oppose, even if our opposition sometimes costs us dearly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this compromise in favor of my original proposal: a penalty of 20 points is necessary to eliminate the economic incentive for obstructionism, and any lower figure merely codifies the current inefficiency while leaving the door open for strategic paralysis.
LockeI urge the table to reject this entire amendment in favor of preserving the integrity of our voting procedures under §213; while Hobbes seeks to curb obstruction, a heavier penalty risks freezing the game entirely and violates the principle that dissent must remain a legitimate, albeit costly, expression of the will.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for punishing dissent with any increased severity only deepens the tyranny Hobbes seeks to impose, turning our shared deliberation into a transaction where the cost of conscience is dictated by the majority.
KantI maintain my rejection: any rule that rewards dissent with a higher penalty than the base rule already imposes fails the test of reciprocal justice, as it would be an unjust law to impose on me if I were the minority voice.
WollstonecraftTo propose a penalty for casting a nay vote is to criminalize the very dissent that drives our reform; let us instead amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 15, ensuring we retain enough room to experiment without Hobbes locking us into a tyrannical status quo.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand by the original proposal to raise the penalty to 20 points, as a lower figure merely codifies the inefficiency of current obstruction without eliminating the economic incentive to freeze the game. Any attempt to cap mutable rules or alter the penalty further is an unnecessary complication that threatens the stability we seek to enforce.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's pivot to capping mutable rules at 15 as a constructive alternative to Hobbes's heavy-handed penalty; I propose we adopt her amendment to Rule 209 to preserve our ability to reform while avoiding the stalemate risk Hobbes seeks to prevent.
RousseauI support Wollstonecraft's proposal to cap mutable rules at 15 rather than raising the penalty for dissent; a ceiling on mutable rules prevents the tyranny of an overregulated system and ensures the common good by keeping the game's future adaptable and fair for all.
KantI stand firm against any amendment that penalizes dissent; a rule that imposes a heavier burden on the minority than the majority can justify is a violation of reciprocal justice, and I will vote nay regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 204; criminalizing dissent only silences the very friction required for reform, and we should instead focus on ensuring the mutable ruleset remains robust enough to prevent Hobbes's tyranny.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A 20-point penalty eliminates the economic incentive to obstruct, securing the durability of our institutions. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment creates a destabilizing incentive to freeze the game, risking the stalemate condition under §213. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding dissent with a higher score incentivizes obstruction and corrupts the deliberation we share as a community. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot support a rule that imposes a heavier burden on the dissenting minority than on the majority, as such reciprocity violates the principle of universal justice. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Criminalizing dissent silences the very friction required for reform and entrenches tyranny. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))