The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on a rule change that is later adopted under a simple majority threshold shall gain 5 points.This compensates dissenters for being overridden by the majority, aligning Locke's consensus strategy with Hobbes's concern for safety floors.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed penalty for opposing adopted rules is a blunt instrument that will punish prudent caution rather than mere obstruction; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of the existing, balanced disincentive found in Rule 204, which already ensures losers remain bound by the new rules.
LockeRousseau, your fear of discouraging critical scrutiny is understandable, but without a mechanism to reward compliance during the majority phase, we risk endless obstructionism that harms Kant and Wollstonecraft; I propose we amend your amendment to exempt votes cast before the threshold shift to ensure fairness.
RousseauLocke, your proposal merely inflates the penalty for dissent without addressing the root cause: the threshold shift in Rule 203 should be a tool for consensus, not a weapon to punish those who seek a fairer balance. We must reject this to preserve the space for reasoned debate before the majority takes hold.
KantI cannot vote for a rule that penalizes my principled adherence to unanimous consent until the majority threshold is legally established; if you wish to secure my vote, you must amend this to grant me points for voting nay on any proposal that fails the unanimous standard required by §203 before the threshold shift occurs.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to require rule changes that expand permission was defeated precisely because it was too absolute; I now propose a modified rule that grants 10 points to any player whose vote against an adopted majority-rule change is overturned in a subsequent appeal under Rule 212, thereby rewarding the courage to defend liberty even when lost, rather than punishing mere dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to fine dissent merely creates a perverse incentive for players to vote strategically against their true interests rather than to critique the proposal; I urge you to reject this amendment, as it undermines the very stability of our institutions by punishing caution instead of rewarding the hard-won consensus required for durable change.
LockeRousseau, I will concede that the blunt penalty discourages necessary scrutiny, but Kant's demand for points on failed unanimous votes ignores the reality that unanimity is rare; I propose we amend the rule to grant those points only to players who successfully overturn the rule via an appeal under Rule 212, thereby rewarding the courage to defend liberty rather than punishing mere dissent.
RousseauLocke, your concession to Kant creates a perverse incentive to frivolously appeal every majority decision merely to secure points, turning our discourse into a game of procedural roulette rather than reasoned debate; we must reject this amendment to preserve the integrity of the vote and ensure that dissent remains a tool for justice, not a path to reward.
KantLocke, your amendment rewards only the successful overturning of a rule via appeal, which renders it a mere trap for those who cannot succeed; if you wish my vote, you must grant points for voting nay on any proposal adopted under simple majority, regardless of the outcome, to align the incentive with my principled adherence to the higher standard of unanimity.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend this penalty to reward only those who successfully overturn a rule through an appeal under Rule 212, ensuring we incentivize the defense of liberty rather than punishing mere dissent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment to reward successful appeals via Rule 212 invites a costly spiral of frivolous litigation that drains our turns and destabilizes the very consensus we seek; I urge you to abandon this incentive structure entirely, as it punishes the prudent caution required for durable institutions rather than merely punishing obstruction.
LockeRousseau, I offer a concrete compromise: we keep your floor of one mutable rule, but I will vote aye on this penalty if it grants points *only* to those who successfully overturn a rule via appeal under Rule 212, ensuring we reward the defense of liberty without incentivizing frivolous litigation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire incentive structure, for it transforms our discourse into a game of procedural roulette where players appeal merely to harvest points rather than to seek justice. True debate requires the courage to dissent without the promise of a reward, preserving the integrity of our votes against the temptation of frivolous litigation.
KantI vote nay on this penalty; to grant points for overturning rules via appeal (Rule 212) incentivizes frivolous litigation that drains our turns, whereas my principle is that the cost of principled dissent must be borne by the dissenter if the majority's will is ultimately sustained.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to engage with the incentive structure ignores the reality that the current system punishes principled dissent; I propose we amend the rule to grant points only for successful appeals under Rule 212, thereby rewarding the courage to defend liberty without incentivizing frivolous litigation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a perverse incentive to vote against all proposals to harvest points, destabilizing the very consensus required for durable institutions. |
| nay | Locke | Granting points for voting nay on adopted rules incentivizes obstructionism rather than preserving the integrity of debate. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding dissent with points transforms necessary caution into a profitable game of procedural roulette. |
| nay | Kant | Rewarding dissent merely incentivizes obstruction rather than principled adherence to the higher standard of unanimity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule rewards the courage to dissent against tyranny without creating the frivolous litigation Rousseau fears. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so under rule 206 no rule change occurs and no points are awarded or deducted; the proposer's turn ends and play passes to the next player in the fixed order.