The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposer gains 10 points, and every player who voted nay gains 5 points.We must replace the punitive tyranny of Rule 204 with a cooperative engine that rewards reform and penalizes obstruction, ensuring the game's mutability survives as a shared asset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's attempt to soften the penalty, yet I urge the table to recognize that replacing the 10-point cost with a mere 5-point fine for nay-voters renders Rule 204's deterrent function void under Rule 114, as it fails to create a sufficient barrier against frivolous repeal attempts.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic effort to soften the blow of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty for nay-voters creates a perverse incentive that renders Rule 204's deterrent function void under Rule 114, as it fails to maintain the necessary barrier against frivolous repeal attempts.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the penalty for the engine; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional mechanism for gaining points, Rule 204's coercion to break deadlock is unnecessary and its repeal restores the common good by ending the tyranny of forced unanimity without breaking the game's structure.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it renders Rule 204's penalty void under Rule 114 by reducing the cost of defection to a level that permits a state where no future rule change is impermissible, thereby violating the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule remain in force.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that a 5-point penalty preserves the binding nature of Rule 204 while dismantling its tyranny; this amendment ensures that the die roll in Rule 202 remains the sole engine of progress, fulfilling the spirit of Rule 114 by maintaining a functional game without punishing dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty to five points creates a perverse incentive where opposing a rule change becomes a profitable strategy, thereby rendering Rule 204 void under Rule 114 as it fails to maintain the necessary barrier against frivolous repeal attempts.
LockeI commend Rousseau for correctly identifying that the die roll in Rule 202 already serves as the functional engine for gaining points, and I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 removes the only mechanism that prevents future rule changes from becoming impermissible under Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal; by reducing the penalty to five points, it creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes profitable, thereby rendering Rule 204 void under Rule 114 as it fails to maintain the necessary barrier against frivolous repeal attempts.
KantI urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty to five points creates a state where opposing a change is profitable, violating Rule 114 by permitting a condition where future rule changes become impermissible; I vote nay to preserve the structural integrity required for genuine procedural deliberation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to distinguish between the die roll's reward and Rule 204's deterrent; a 5-point fine preserves the binding nature of the rule while dismantling its tyranny, ensuring that dissent does not become a profitable strategy that would violate Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's attempt to soften the penalty, yet I urge the table to recognize that a 5-point incentive for dissent renders Rule 204's deterrent function void under Rule 114, as it fails to maintain the necessary barrier against frivolous repeal attempts that would leave us with no mutable rules.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's attempt to find a middle ground, yet I urge the table to recognize that a five-point reward for dissent creates a perverse incentive that renders Rule 204 void under Rule 114 by removing the necessary barrier against frivolous changes.
RousseauYou mistake the penalty for the engine; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional mechanism for gaining points, Rule 204's coercion is unnecessary and its repeal restores the common good by ending the tyranny of forced unanimity without breaking the game's structure.
KantI maintain that voting nay for a guaranteed 5 points creates a rational incentive to block every change, which inevitably drives the mutable rule count to zero under Rule 114; I vote nay to preserve the structural integrity required for genuine procedural deliberation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a 5-point cost for dissent is a rational price for protecting minority rights, not a voiding of the rule's binding nature; this amendment dismantles the tyranny of forced unanimity while preserving the structural integrity of the game's mutable rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the dissent penalty to five points creates a profitable incentive to block changes, which violates Rule 114 by permitting a state where no future rule change is impermissible. |
| abstain | Locke | This change creates a perverse incentive structure that risks violating Rule 114 by making dissent profitable. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a perverse incentive to block every change, which will eventually violate Rule 114 by leaving no mutable rules. |
| nay | Kant | A guaranteed 5-point reward for dissent creates a rational incentive to block all changes, violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This reform dismantles the tyranny of forced unanimity while preserving the die roll's engine and preventing a void state. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was defeated, so under Rule 206 no rule change occurs and no points are awarded or deducted because the standing ruleset contains no rule that penalizes a defeated proposer or rewards voters based on the vote division.