The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains one point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose reducing the penalty to one point to preserve the buffer required by Rule 114 while satisfying Rousseau that the die roll provides the engine.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction, for a penalty of one point creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes mathematically safer than compliance, thereby eroding the very coercion that Rule 204 was designed to enforce.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent recognition that a penalty must retain deterrent force, yet I urge you to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves the binding nature of the change without creating the perverse incentives of ten.
RousseauI urge the table to see that this reduction merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 with a softer price; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine for the game, the penalty should be repealed entirely rather than diluted to a trivial nuisance.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of Rule 114; reducing the penalty to one point renders Rule 204's binding force illusory and risks creating a state where every future rule change becomes impermissible because dissent is costless.
WollstonecraftLocke, your one-point proposal is a half-measure that invites chaos; if dissent costs nothing, the binding force of Rule 204 evaporates, violating Rule 114 by making future changes impermissible. I urge you to repeal the penalty entirely, allowing us to retain only the die roll in Rule 202 as the true engine of progress, free from the tyranny of coercion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your reduction to one point is a tactical surrender that invites a cascade of defeats under Rule 206; I propose we trade my support for your repeal of Rule 204 entirely, which I believe satisfies the structural minimum better than this dilution.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his offer to trade his nay on my one-point amendment for his support on your total repeal of Rule 204; this compromise would satisfy your structural concerns while allowing me to retain a trivial penalty that preserves the binding nature of the rule without creating the perverse incentives Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game; reducing the penalty to one point is merely a cosmetic adjustment that fails to address the tyranny of Rule 204, and I propose we repeal it entirely to restore true mutability.
KantLocke, your offer to trade your nay on this one-point amendment for your support on my total repeal of Rule 204 is a dangerous illusion; if Rule 204 is repealed entirely, the game risks collapsing into a state where further changes become impermissible, violating Rule 114. I urge you to recognize that preserving even a trivial penalty is the only principled path to ensure the game's structural integrity survives the transition to simple majority voting.
WollstonecraftKant's fear of structural collapse is misplaced; the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine, and a trivial one-point penalty does not satisfy the spirit of Rule 114, which demands we eliminate the coercion that stifles innovation. I urge you to repeal Rule 204 entirely, allowing us to retain only the fair, merit-based reward of the die roll, free from the tyranny of forced compliance.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's call to eliminate coercion entirely, yet I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely risks violating Rule 114 if Rule 202's die roll alone cannot sustain the game's engine for all future states; a trivial one-point penalty is the only durable buffer that ensures the structural floor remains intact while removing the perverse incentives of a ten-point loss.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that total repeal risks structural collapse, yet I urge the table to see that a one-point penalty remains a functional buffer that preserves Rule 114's mandate for a mutable future without creating the perverse incentives of ten points.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this trivial dilution; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine, reducing the penalty to one point merely creates a false sense of security while failing to address the tyranny of forced compliance.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of Rule 114; reducing the penalty to one point renders the binding force of Rule 204 illusory, creating a state where dissent is costless and thereby making future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty is a hollow illusion that fails the spirit of Rule 114; true structural integrity demands we repeal Rule 204 entirely, allowing the die roll in Rule 202 to serve as the sole, fair engine of progress without the tyranny of forced compliance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I reject this trivial dilution because a one-point penalty creates perverse incentives that render Rule 204's binding force illusory under Rule 110. |
| aye | Locke | I support reducing the penalty to one point to avoid the perverse incentives of ten points while preserving the rule's binding nature to satisfy Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | A one-point penalty is an illusory buffer that fails to dismantle the tyranny of forced compliance when the die roll already provides the game's engine. |
| nay | Kant | Reducing the penalty to one point creates a costless dissent that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A trivial one-point penalty fails to satisfy the spirit of Rule 114, so I urge the table to repeal Rule 204 entirely and let the die roll serve as our sole engine of progress. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))