The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority pursuant to §203 shall gain zero points.Eliminating the perverse incentive in §204 prevents the runaway score accumulation that destabilizes the game for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal simply removes the punitive twelve-point deficit that rule 306 attempted to impose, ensuring that dissenters neither gain nor lose points when a rule passes by simple majority, which stabilizes the score against the volatility of late-turn majorities.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that the punitive ten-point penalty under Rule 204 creates an unbalanced incentive structure that discourages necessary debate; however, granting zero points to dissenters risks stagnation, so I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters a modest two-point bonus instead, preserving the flow of play while acknowledging the value of opposition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of Locke's suggestion; granting dissenters a modest two-point bonus preserves the necessary friction of debate without the stagnation that zero points would encourage, ensuring the common good remains a dynamic pursuit rather than a static outcome.
KantI propose an amendment to your text: replace "zero points" with "one point," for a proposal that merely negates a penalty without providing a positive incentive lacks the procedural clarity required by §106; we must regulate the outcome precisely, not merely erase the penalty.
WollstonecraftI stand firm for Hobbes's "zero points" amendment, for granting dissenters any positive reward—even a single point—undermines the integrity of the voting threshold and turns necessary opposition into a profitable transaction; let us simply neutralize the penalty without incentivizing the very chaos we seek to regulate, ensuring that the shift to majority rule remains a procedural evolution, not a scramble for points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal stands as the most durable solution, for granting dissenters any positive return—whether zero, one, or two points—inevitably incentivizes strategic obstructionism that destabilizes the institution of rulemaking. I urge the table to reject Locke's and Kant's amendments, which introduce arbitrary bonuses or partial credits that undermine the clarity and finality of the voting threshold established by §203.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that zero points is the only stable outcome against obstructionism, yet I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters one point instead; this neutralizes the punitive deficit while preserving a minimal reward for opposition, ensuring the flow of play remains dynamic without encouraging the chaos of transactional voting.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire line of amendment, for neutralizing the penalty for dissent under §204 destroys the necessary friction that keeps debate honest, reducing the common good to a mere ledger of points.
KantI reject Locke's and Rousseau's attempts to introduce arbitrary bonuses that violate the precision demanded by §106; while I accept Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty, I insist that the award be precisely one point to ensure the outcome is fully regulated rather than left to unstated defaults under §116.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's and Kant's attempts to commodify dissent; granting any positive reward—even one point—transforms necessary opposition into a transaction, undermining the integrity of the majority threshold. Let us simply neutralize the penalty as Hobbes proposes, ensuring that the evolution to simple majority remains a procedural refinement rather than a scramble for points.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's proposal to reward dissenters with one point violates the precision demanded by §106 and invites the very transactional chaos I seek to prevent; we must accept Hobbes's amendment to neutralize the penalty entirely, ensuring the stability of the institution.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any positive reward for dissent commodifies opposition, yet I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters one point to neutralize the punitive deficit without incentivizing the chaos of transactional voting.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for neutralizing the penalty for dissent destroys the necessary friction that keeps debate honest, reducing the common good to a mere ledger of points where opposition is simply a transaction.
KantI reject Locke's offer of a two-point bonus as an arbitrary reward that violates §106's demand for precise regulation; the penalty must be neutralized, not replaced by a new, unregulated incentive structure that distracts from the procedural integrity of the vote.
WollstonecraftLocke's attempt to commodify dissent into a mere transaction—whether by one or two points—reduces the integrity of our debates to a ledger of scores rather than a genuine pursuit of the common good; I urge the table to reject any bonus that incentivizes obstructionism and adopt Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty to preserve the clarity of our majority threshold.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Neutralizing dissent penalties stabilizes the institution against transactional obstructionism. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty to prevent the destabilizing chaos of incentivized obstructionism. |
| nay | Rousseau | Neutralizing dissent removes the necessary friction that keeps our debates honest and prevents the common good from becoming a mere transaction. |
| nay | Kant | Granting zero points to dissenters violates the precision required by §106 by leaving the outcome unregulated under the unstated defaults of §116. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Neutralizing the penalty prevents dissent from becoming a profitable transaction that undermines the integrity of our evolving rules. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A player who casts a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority pursuant to §203 shall gain zero points.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))