The motion
To add a new rule
Players who cast a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority (per rule 203) gain 15 points instead of 10.This rewards dissenters sufficiently to buy my silence on future caps, turning a potential blocker into a swing voter.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's suggestion to increase the penalty from ten to fifteen points is a dangerous miscalculation that ignores the current trajectory of the game; with Rousseau at -20, such a harsh measure risks triggering the deadlock provision in rule 213 before we even approach a target score, and I urge you to reconsider this punitive escalation in favor of the stable two-point threshold already in effect.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a sharp penalty spike threatens the very viability of play under §213, yet I urge the table to adopt a moderate fifteen-point bonus rather than our current ten, as a modest increase aligns with the stricter fifteen-rule cap that has already failed to pass and may finally secure a stable equilibrium we can all accept.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; increasing the penalty to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and risks triggering the deadlock provision of §213 before any player can reach the target, which would benefit no one but hasten the game's demise.
KantI must vote nay on this increase from ten to fifteen points; raising the penalty for lawful dissent only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reasonably approach the target score.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend rule 209 to cap mutable rules at fifteen, replacing the failed twenty, to prevent the exhaustion that Rousseau and Kant fear while avoiding the stagnation Hobbes warns of; this balanced limit ensures the game evolves without triggering the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; raising the penalty to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, which will inevitably trigger the deadlock provision of §213 long before any player can approach the target score.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a rigid cap on mutable rules is more dangerous to our survival than a slight adjustment to the penalty threshold; I will vote aye for the fifteen-point bonus as a constructive compromise that respects the table's need for stability while avoiding the stagnation Hobbes fears.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to abandon this punitive escalation; increasing the penalty to fifteen points accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the very deadlock of §213 that harms us all, whereas a lower cap on rule count preserves the game's viability without punishing dissent.
KantI must vote nay on this proposal; raising the penalty from ten to fifteen points for dissent is a procedural injustice that violates the principle that one cannot punish the exercise of a right guaranteed by the rules, and such escalation only hastens the exhaustion of mutable rules under §114 and §213.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this punitive escalation; raising the penalty from ten to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reasonably approach the target, whereas amending rule 209 to a fifteen-rule cap offers a balanced path for the game's survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's punitive escalation, as raising the dissent penalty only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213; we must prioritize game survival over minor adjustments to penalty thresholds.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for identifying that a fifteen-point penalty risks triggering the deadlock of §213, yet I urge you to reject their alternative cap at fifteen as well, since reducing the mutable rule pool below twenty creates a more certain path to stagnation than a modest adjustment to the dissent bonus.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this punitive escalation entirely, for increasing the penalty to fifteen points accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213, whereas preserving the lower cap on rule count offers a balanced path for the game's survival.
KantI maintain that punishing lawful dissent under a simple majority violates the procedural equality of voters and accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, hastening the deadlock of §213; we must reject this escalation and preserve the principle that voting nay carries no heavier penalty than the current ten points.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this punitive escalation entirely, as increasing the penalty for lawful dissent only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213; let us instead amend rule 209 to a fifteen-rule cap to ensure the game evolves without hastening its demise.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, inviting the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target score. |
| nay | Locke | Increasing the penalty for dissent risks triggering the deadlock provision in rule 213 before any player can reach the target score. |
| nay | Rousseau | Punishing dissent accelerates rule exhaustion and risks triggering the deadlock of §213 before we reach a winner. |
| nay | Kant | Punishing the exercise of a legitimate voting right accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Punishing lawful dissent accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes take effect.