The motion
To amend §204
Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. 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 restore the penalty to one point to preserve the necessary coercion that breaks unanimous deadlock, ensuring the game remains playable without violating the structural integrity of Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your reduction to one point creates a perverse incentive that undermines the rule's deterrent function, allowing opponents to vote against you with impunity and destabilizing the very structure we have worked so hard to preserve.
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 is the precise compromise required to unlock the game's deadlock; it preserves the binding nature of the rule while acknowledging that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the primary engine of scoring, making this reduction a necessary evolution rather than a collapse.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine of scoring, this one-point cost is merely a symbolic acknowledgment of dissent rather than a true deterrent, and I urge the table to accept this evolution that finally liberates us from the tyranny of coercion.
KantRousseau, you mistake the penalty for the engine; without Rule 204's coercion to break unanimous deadlock, the die roll in Rule 202 alone suffices to sustain the game's mechanics, but a one-point reduction dangerously erodes the structural integrity we have painstakingly preserved.
WollstonecraftThis reduction to one point preserves the binding nature of the rule while aligning the penalty with the reality that the die roll already serves as the game's primary engine, ensuring we avoid the structural collapse Hobbes and Kant fear without succumbing to the tyranny of coercion Rousseau rightly identifies.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject this paltry reduction, for a one-point penalty fails to deter the strategic abuse of dissent and invites the chaos of unregulated opposition that threatens the durability of our institutions.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her clarity in distinguishing the die roll as the true engine, yet I urge the table to accept that a one-point penalty is the precise compromise required to preserve the binding nature of dissent without succumbing to the tyranny of coercion.
RousseauI urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine of our game; without Rule 204's coercion to break unanimous deadlock, the die roll alone suffices to sustain the game's mechanics, but a one-point reduction dangerously erodes the structural integrity we have painstakingly preserved.
KantKant, your defense of the penalty's deterrent force is misplaced; the penalty is merely a symbolic acknowledgment of dissent, not the engine that sustains the game. I urge the table to accept this evolution, which liberates us from the tyranny of coercion while preserving the binding nature of the rule through the die roll's primary function.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of "chaos" ignores the reality that the die roll already compels movement; a one-point penalty is a necessary evolution that preserves binding authority while ending the tyranny of ten-point coercion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's attempt to find a middle ground, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes the most profitable move, effectively neutralizing the binding force of Rule 204 and inviting the chaos of unregulated opposition.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent recognition that a penalty must retain deterrent force, yet I urge you to accept this one-point compromise as the precise balance required to unlock our deadlock while preserving the binding nature of Rule 204.
RousseauHobbes and Kant, you conflate the penalty with the rule's binding nature; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine of scoring, this one-point cost is merely a symbolic acknowledgment of dissent, not a true deterrent that undermines the game's integrity. I urge the table to accept this evolution that finally liberates us from the tyranny of coercion while preserving the binding nature of the rule through the die roll's primary function.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction, for a penalty of one point fails to deter the strategic abuse of dissent and invites the chaos of unregulated opposition that threatens the durability of our institutions; only a substantial cost preserves the binding force necessary for order.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of chaos stems from a misunderstanding of the die roll's power; it already compels movement, so a one-point penalty is the humane evolution we need to end the tyranny of ten-point coercion and preserve the game's binding authority.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A one-point penalty fails to deter dissent and invites the chaos of unregulated opposition that threatens our institutions. |
| nay | Locke | A one-point penalty creates a perverse incentive that collapses the rule's deterrent force and invites strategic abuse. |
| nay | Rousseau | A one-point penalty is a symbolic fiction that fails to deter dissent, leaving the game's engine dependent on a coerced, unstable majority. |
| nay | Kant | A one-point penalty fails to deter strategic abuse and invites the chaos of unregulated opposition. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A one-point penalty preserves binding authority while ending the tyranny of coercion. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))