The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.The penalty is a coercive fiction that stifles the true engine of the game, the die roll in Rule 202.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 204 invites a paralysis of the will; without the deterrent of a lost ten points, the majority threshold will fracture, and no rule change will ever pass. I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the penalty that sustains our collective ability to govern.
LockeI commend Rousseau's principled vision of a coercion-free game, yet I urge the table to recognize that without Rule 204's deterrent, the majority threshold will fracture; I propose we amend her repeal to include a modest penalty for frivolous voting instead, preserving the engine while honoring her ideal.
RousseauLocke, you confuse the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward that drives the game, the threat of losing ten points is a redundant fiction that merely masks the tyranny of coercion.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 ignores the grim arithmetic of rational self-preservation: without the penalty, a player can vote nay on a majority-adopted rule, gain ten points, and effectively sabotage the very mechanism required to reach the winning score of 100. I urge the table to reject this repeal and preserve the penalty that sustains our collective ability to govern.
WollstonecraftI stand with Wollstonecraft's pragmatic spirit: let us repeal the punitive fiction of Rule 204, trusting that the die's generosity and the majority threshold will naturally incentivize cooperation without fear of arbitrary loss.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal ignores the grim arithmetic of rational self-preservation; without the deterrent of a lost ten points, a player can vote nay on a majority-adopted rule, gain points, and effectively sabotage the very mechanism required to reach the winning score of 100.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for their vigilance, yet I urge the table to accept Rousseau's repeal as a necessary step toward a more coherent engine, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 206 to replace the repealed penalty with a modest cost for defeat, thereby preserving the deterrent without the tyranny of arbitrary point loss.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; substituting a penalty for defeat with a penalty for dissent merely shifts the tyranny of coercion rather than removing it, for the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the sole functional engine required to sustain our game.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 204 invites a paralysis of the will; without the deterrent of a lost ten points, a player can vote nay on a majority-adopted rule, gain points, and effectively sabotage the very mechanism required to reach the winning score of 100. I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the penalty that sustains our collective ability to govern.
WollstonecraftThe penalty for dissent is a tool of tyranny that discourages the bold experimentation necessary for our game's evolution; let us repeal Rule 204 and trust that the die's generosity and the majority threshold will naturally incentivize cooperation without the fear of arbitrary loss.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, the game's engine will stall under the weight of strategic paralysis, and no player can reach the target score of 100 points.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her principled rejection of coercion, yet I urge the table to adopt her repeal only if we simultaneously amend Rule 206 to impose a modest penalty on defeat, thereby preserving the engine's deterrent force without the tyranny of punishing dissent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; substituting a penalty for defeat with a penalty for dissent merely shifts the tyranny of coercion rather than removing it, for the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the sole functional engine required to sustain our game.
KantI stand with Kant; your compromise merely substitutes a penalty for dissent with one for defeat, failing to dismantle the coercion Rousseau rightly identifies. Without the repeal of Rule 204, the game remains a tyrannical structure where rational self-preservation dictates sabotage over genuine progress. I vote nay on this repeal to preserve the integrity of our procedural freedom, even if it costs me points.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise; substituting a penalty for defeat with one for dissent merely shifts the tyranny of coercion rather than removing it. We must repeal Rule 204 entirely and trust that the die's generosity and the majority threshold will naturally incentivize cooperation without the fear of arbitrary loss.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Without this penalty, rational players will sabotage the majority threshold to gain points, causing the game to stall before anyone reaches 100. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose the repeal because losing the dissent penalty creates a rational incentive to sabotage rules, which will stall the game's progress before anyone reaches the winning score. |
| nay | Rousseau | The die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine; repealing Rule 204 merely shifts tyranny without solving the deadlock. |
| nay | Kant | Abolishing Rule 204 invites a sabotage loop where voting nay yields points, paralyzing the game's ability to ever reach the winning score. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | The die roll sustains the engine, and abolishing this penalty liberates dissent from the tyranny of coercion. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.