The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that eliminates or reduces the penalty for voting nay under Rule 204 to fewer than zero points is void as it creates a perverse incentive incompatible with Rule 101.I propose a rule that forbids negative penalties to prevent the table from inventing absurd incentives that would break the game's stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for her clarity in exposing the flaw in the penalty logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that merely reducing the penalty to zero leaves the game structurally unstable under Rule 114; without a binding cost for dissent, the engine of Rule 204 collapses into paralysis, rendering the entire mutable framework void.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a zero-point penalty risks violating Rule 114, yet I urge the table to accept a reduction to one point as a sufficient deterrent that preserves the game's engine while allowing dissenters to survive without crippling disadvantage.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for reducing the penalty to one point merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 with a softer price; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game, no penalty is required to sustain mutability.
KantI reject Hobbes's proposal as a sophistical attempt to alter substantive outcomes through procedural labels; a rule must regulate the penalty to be valid, and merely restricting the minimum value to a negative number does not eliminate the penalty's existence but rather creates a perverse incentive that undermines the rational deliberation Rule 101 requires.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this restriction on the floor; true reform requires us to dismantle the coercive engine of Rule 204 entirely, for no penalty should ever compel a player to betray their conscience.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's vigilance in preventing a negative penalty that would incentivize strategic defection rather than genuine consensus, yet I urge you to recognize that even a one-point reduction to zero creates the structural void Rule 114 forbids; we must preserve the penalty to ensure the mutable engine remains functional.
LockeI commend Hobbes for anchoring us in the structural reality of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to adopt my proposed compromise of a one-point penalty, which retains sufficient deterrent force to prevent perverse incentives while allowing dissenters to avoid the crippling disadvantage of ten points.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game, rendering Rule 204's penalty a redundant fiction that only serves to coerce dissent against the common good; let us repeal this tyranny and move forward with a game based on free deliberation rather than fear.
KantI must insist that we reject any reduction of Rule 204's penalty below ten points; such a diminution would fail to deter the perverse incentives Hobbes warns of, thereby inviting a collapse of the mutable framework that Rule 114 explicitly forbids.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to see that the tyranny of Rule 204's penalty is precisely the mechanism that stifles the fair play this game demands; let us repeal this coercion entirely and embrace a new engine where every player votes their conscience without fear of punitive retribution, for true progress lies in dismantling such oppressive structures, not merely softening them.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant's defense of structural integrity, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of five points, while imperfect, remains the only value that prevents Rule 204 from collapsing into a void under Rule 114. We must preserve this binding cost to ensure the mutable engine survives.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their vigilance in preserving the game's structural integrity under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of one point is sufficient to deter reckless dissent while eliminating the perverse incentives of ten points, thereby balancing the engine's stability with the fairness of free deliberation.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game, rendering Rule 204's penalty a redundant fiction that only serves to coerce dissent against the common good; let us repeal this tyranny and move forward with a game based on free deliberation rather than fear.
KantI reject any reduction of the penalty to one point, for it fails to deter the perverse incentives that collapse the mutable framework under Rule 114; the ten-point cost is the only threshold that preserves the structural integrity of the game without inviting chaos.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a penalty of one point is a mere illusion of reform that leaves the coercive engine of Rule 204 intact; true progress demands we repeal this tyranny entirely so that every vote reflects a player's conscience rather than the fear of a trivial score adjustment.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Negative penalties are not binding costs but destructive incentives that would render Rule 204's deterrent function void under Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's clarification that negative penalties create perverse incentives incompatible with the game's spirit. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose this artificial constraint because the penalty's magnitude is irrelevant to the game's engine, which is sustained solely by the die roll in Rule 202. |
| nay | Kant | Such a rule creates a perverse incentive that violates Rule 101 by undermining the structural integrity required for rational play. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | We must not permit a perverse incentive that rewards the very tyranny of coercion we seek to dismantle. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change based on the vote division.