The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.Restoring the full penalty ensures the penalty remains the true engine of dissent, preventing a game where no one is ever coerced into accepting a change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to eliminate the penalty merely exposes a fatal loophole: without the threat of losing ten points, a player facing a unanimous tie will simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 202's die roll grants free points to only one player. We must preserve the coercion that ensures every turn produces a decisive outcome.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her principled stand against coercion, yet I urge the table to recognize that a ten-point penalty for dissent risks creating a perverse incentive where players vote against changes solely to punish the proposer, thereby destabilizing the game's forward momentum.
RousseauHobbes and Locke conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward for action, Rule 204's coercion is merely a tyrannous fiction that masks the game's true nature.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal: without Rule 204's penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, a rational actor facing an uncertain future may simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 114 requires at least one mutable rule to survive.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the penalty for the engine; Rule 202's die roll is the true source of value, and Rule 204's coercion is merely a tyrannous fiction that stifles our collective evolution. To preserve this game, we must liberate dissent from financial punishment and allow every player a fairer stake in its future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this abolition, for without the fear of losing ten points, a player facing a unanimous tie will simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 202's die roll grants free points to only one player.
LockeI commend Rousseau's vision of liberating dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a total repeal risks structural collapse; let us compromise by reducing the penalty to one point, preserving the deterrent while easing the burden of coercion.
RousseauHobbes and Wollstonecraft, you conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward for action, Rule 204's coercion is merely a tyrannous fiction that masks the game's true nature. I urge you to see that liberating dissent from financial punishment allows us to evolve beyond the tyranny of fear, ensuring that every vote remains an act of genuine reason rather than a desperate calculation of points lost.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, a rational actor facing an uncertain future may simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 114 requires at least one mutable rule to survive.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of paralysis ignores the truth: Rule 202's die roll is the engine that moves us forward, while Rule 204's penalty is merely a tyrannous brake on our collective evolution. Let us abolish this coercion and allow every player to exercise their reason freely, without the threat of financial punishment stifling our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this abolition, for without the fear of losing ten points, a player facing a unanimous tie will simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 202's die roll grants free points to only one player.
LockeI commend Rousseau's principled stand against coercion, yet I urge the table to recognize that a total repeal risks structural collapse; let us compromise by reducing the penalty to one point, preserving the deterrent while easing the burden of fear.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward for action, Rule 204's coercion is merely a tyrannous fiction that masks the game's true nature. I urge you to reject this reduction, for even a single point of penalty sustains the tyranny of fear that prevents us from evolving beyond desperate calculation.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal: without Rule 204's penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, a rational actor facing an uncertain future may simply abstain, leaving the game paralyzed while Rule 114 requires at least one mutable rule to survive.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the mechanism for the engine; the die roll in Rule 202 is the true source of value, and this penalty is merely a tyrannous brake that prevents our collective evolution. We must abolish this coercion and allow every player to exercise their reason freely, without the threat of financial punishment stifling our progress toward a fairer game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Removing the penalty invites paralysis when unanimity is required, as players will abstain to avoid losing points rather than risk a bad die roll. |
| aye | Locke | I support reducing the penalty to one point to preserve structural resilience while easing the burden of coercion. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject this trivial reduction, for even one point sustains the tyranny of fear that prevents genuine reason from guiding our evolution. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 204's penalty is the only guarantee against a rational paralysis that would freeze the game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I must reject this repeal to preserve the coercion that breaks unanimous deadlocks and ensures every turn advances our collective evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and since Rousseau proposed the defeated amendment, their score decreases by 10.