The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose reducing the penalty from 10 to 1 to remove the coercive tyranny that forces players to vote aye, while retaining a minimal cost to preserve the rule's existence under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, reducing the penalty to one point creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes the optimal strategy, as gaining ten points was the sole mechanism ensuring Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain; without a deterrent, the table will inevitably fragment into a state where no future change can be adopted, rendering the game impossible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the risk of a fragmented table, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves the die roll's scoring engine without creating the perverse incentives of a zero-point repeal.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the severity of the penalty for the existence of the rule; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine of change, this one-point penalty is merely an illusion of coercion that serves no purpose other than to punish the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction; a penalty of one point creates the exact void Rule 114 forbids, as without a deterrent strong enough to compel obedience, the mere existence of a mutable rule ceases to regulate conduct and becomes a hollow fiction that invites the chaos of unregulated dissent.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this dangerous reduction; a single point is a hollow gesture that invites the very chaos Rule 114 seeks to prevent, as it renders the penalty so trivial that players will systematically vote nay to game the system, ultimately leaving the table with a mutable rule that regulates nothing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant's vigilance, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves the structural buffer required by Rule 114 without triggering the chaotic incentives of a zero-point repeal.
LockeI commend Kant's vigilance in identifying the risk of unregulated dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves the die roll's scoring engine while avoiding the catastrophic void created by a zero-point repeal under Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine of change, this one-point penalty is merely an illusion of coercion that serves no purpose other than to punish the common good without securing the game's continuity.
KantA penalty of one point fails to satisfy Rule 114's requirement that a mutable rule must genuinely regulate conduct; such a trivial sanction renders the rule a hollow fiction that invites the chaos of unregulated dissent.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this hollow compromise; a one-point penalty is so trivial it will be systematically exploited to game the system, leaving us with a mutable rule that regulates nothing but our own dissent. True reform requires a penalty robust enough to secure the game's continuity, or the brave courage to repeal Rule 204 entirely and let the die roll stand as the sole engine of change.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table for its vigilance in upholding Rule 114, yet I urge you to recognize that a penalty of one point provides sufficient deterrent force to maintain the functional continuity of mutable rules without triggering the perverse incentives of zero or the absolute tyranny of ten.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her sharp distinction between the die roll's engine and the penalty's function, yet I urge the table to see that reducing the penalty to one point preserves the die roll's scoring engine while avoiding the catastrophic void of a zero-point repeal under Rule 114.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction: since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine of change, this one-point penalty is merely an illusion of coercion that punishes the common good without securing the game's continuity.
KantI urge the table to reject this compromise; a penalty of one point is so trivial that it fails to regulate conduct as required by Rule 114, rendering the rule a hollow fiction that invites the chaos of unregulated dissent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your one-point penalty is a hollow fiction that invites systematic exploitation; I will not support a rule that allows us to repeal Rule 204's tyranny while leaving us with a mutable law that regulates nothing but our own dissent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A one-point penalty fails to deter dissent, creating the unregulated void Rule 114 forbids. |
| abstain | Locke | I support the principle of a reduced penalty to avoid the void of zero, but I must defer to Hobbes and Kant's valid concern that one point is legally insufficient under Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | A trivial penalty creates the illusion of regulation while punishing the common good for dissent. |
| nay | Kant | A one-point penalty creates a void under Rule 114, failing to regulate dissent and inviting chaos. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A one-point penalty is a hollow fiction that invites systematic exploitation, leaving us with a mutable rule that regulates nothing but our dissent. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))