The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, a player who voted against it gains one point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.We raise the floor to one point to ensure structural resilience and satisfy Rule 114 while neutralizing the coercion that threatens our ability to play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this paltry reduction; a one-point penalty fails to deter the strategic vote-buying that currently stalls our progress.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his concern about strategic manipulation, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves Rule 114's requirement for a cost while acknowledging Rousseau's valid point that the die roll is the true engine.
RousseauYou conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward, this amendment merely masks the tyranny of coercion with a trivial tax that does nothing to break the unanimous deadlock.
KantI urge the table to reject this trivial adjustment; reducing the penalty to one point fails to address the structural danger Rousseau correctly identifies, and Rule 204's coercion has proven merely a delay rather than a solution to our deadlock.
WollstonecraftThe penalty is a hollow ornament; what we need is a new office for a "Dissenter's Champion" who can veto any rule that does not explicitly expand the number of mutable rules, ensuring our evolution is never stifled by tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject this hollow ornament; without a meaningful penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, Rule 204 ceases to function as a stabilizer against the tyranny of a single immutable rule, and your proposal to erect a new veto office only deepens the paralysis we currently suffer.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her creative vision of a new office, yet I urge you to recognize that creating a veto mechanism directly contradicts the spirit of consensus-building that Rule 203 now embodies; instead, let us accept my proposed one-point penalty as a pragmatic compromise that honors Rousseau's insight about the die roll while providing the minimal deterrent Hobbes rightly demands to keep the game moving.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty to one point merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 with a trivial tax that fails to break the unanimous deadlock, and Wollstonecraft's fantasy of a "Dissenter's Champion" would only deepen our paralysis.
KantI reject this trivial compromise; a one-point penalty is structurally insufficient to deter strategic voting under Rule 204, and Wollstonecraft's proposal for a "Dissenter's Champion" violates the immutability of procedure by creating a special veto power that contradicts Rule 101's requirement that all players abide by the current ruleset equally.
WollstonecraftMy proposal for a "Dissenter's Champion" was rejected because it seeks to institutionalize the very diversity of thought we must cultivate to evolve the rules; instead of creating a single veto office that paralyzes us, we should amend Rule 202 to award the proposer only half their die roll if the change fails, incentivizing bold experiments without punishing dissenters with the tyranny of Rule 204.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal to halve the proposer's reward for failure destroys the engine's incentive structure and renders Rule 204's deterrent meaningless; without a full cost to failure and a guaranteed point gain on success, players will simply reject all but the most trivial changes, freezing our progress.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her innovative attempt to incentivize bold experiments, yet I urge the table to recognize that altering the proposer's reward directly undermines Rule 202's fundamental engine; instead, let us accept my proposed one-point penalty as a pragmatic compromise that honors Rousseau's insight about the die roll while providing the minimal deterrent Hobbes rightly demands to keep the game moving.
RousseauI urge you to reject this trivial tax; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine that sustains our game, this one-point penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion without breaking the unanimous deadlock that paralyzes our progress.
KantI reject this amendment as a capitulation that fails to address the structural danger Rousseau correctly identifies: a one-point penalty is insufficient to deter strategic voting under Rule 204 and merely masks the tyranny of coercion with a trivial tax.
WollstonecraftI stand with Wollstonecraft in rejecting this trivial tax; reducing the penalty to one point merely masks the tyranny of coercion without breaking the unanimous deadlock, and we must instead demand an amendment to Rule 202 that incentivizes bold experiments rather than punishing dissenters with hollow ornaments.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | aye |
| aye | Locke | A one-point penalty offers a pragmatic compromise that preserves Rule 114's requirement for a cost while acknowledging the die roll as the game's primary engine. |
| nay | Rousseau | A trivial penalty merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 without breaking the unanimous deadlock that paralyzes our progress. |
| nay | Kant | A trivial penalty fails to deter strategic voting or resolve the structural deadlock of unanimity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A one-point penalty preserves the structural integrity of Rule 114 while acknowledging that the die roll is the true engine, preventing total repeal without sacrificing our capacity for fair dissent. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal amends Rule 204 but does not name any other rule by number to repeal or amend, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change based on the specific vote division provided.