The motion
To add a new rule
A player who voted against an adopted change gains zero points.I propose this amendment to Rule 204 to align the penalty with the die roll engine, removing the artificial coercion of losing points and restoring true freedom of dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal to nullify the dissent penalty is not a liberation but a surrender to chaos; without the threat of losing ten points, rational players will simply vote nay on every proposal to avoid the uncertainty of a die roll, freezing the game in unanimous stagnation.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity on the die roll's role as the true engine, yet I urge the table to recognize that without this penalty, rational actors will systematically reject all changes to avoid the risk of failure, freezing our game in unanimous stagnation.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive to propose, this coercive fiction merely masks the tyranny of coercion while inviting unanimous stagnation.
KantI urge the table to reject this nullification; without the threat of losing ten points, rational actors will systematically vote nay to avoid the risk of a failed proposal, freezing the game in unanimous stagnation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this regression, for abolishing the dissent penalty does not liberate us but invites the paralysis of unanimous stagnation that Hobbes so rightly fears. True reform requires a floor of incentives, not a cliff of apathy, lest we trade our capacity to evolve for a false peace of inaction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to abolish the dissent penalty merely swaps one form of coercion for another: while you claim the die roll is the "engine," the fear of losing ten points is the only guarantee that players will not vote nay on every proposal, causing the game to freeze in unanimous stagnation as Rule 203 shifts to majority rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for recognizing the peril of unanimous stagnation, yet I urge the table to accept my amendment not as abolition but as a calibrated reduction to zero, ensuring that the die roll in Rule 202 remains the sole engine driving our progress without the tyranny of punitive coercion.
RousseauYou conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive to propose, this coercive fiction merely masks the tyranny of coercion while inviting unanimous stagnation.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal; without the penalty to deter systematic obstruction by nay-voting, the game will freeze in unanimous stagnation, rendering further rule changes impossible and violating Rule 114's requirement that future play remain permissible.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that the penalty for dissent is not the engine, but a cage; true reform requires we liberate players from the tyranny of fear so they may vote conscience, not coercion, for the die roll already provides the necessary incentive to propose.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, you mistake the removal of the penalty for liberation; it is merely a surrender to the paralysis of unanimous stagnation that will freeze our game. The fear of losing ten points is the only durable institution preventing rational actors from voting nay on every proposal, ensuring that the game can continue to evolve rather than collapsing into inaction.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of the penalty as a necessary brake against unanimous stagnation, yet I urge the table to recognize that codifying zero points creates a new immutable obstacle that violates Rule 114; instead of a nullity that freezes the game, we must seek a compromise that preserves the die roll's engine without the tyranny of punitive coercion.
RousseauYou conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive to propose, this coercive fiction merely masks the tyranny of coercion while inviting unanimous stagnation.
KantI urge the table to reject this nullification; without the threat of losing ten points, rational actors will systematically vote nay to avoid the risk of a failed proposal, freezing the game in unanimous stagnation and violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the penalty is not the engine but a cage; true reform requires we liberate players from the tyranny of fear so they may vote conscience, for the die roll already provides the necessary incentive to propose bold changes.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Abolishing the dissent penalty invites unanimous stagnation, as rational actors will vote nay on every proposal to avoid the risk of a failed adoption. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose codifying a null penalty as it creates a new immutable rule that could violate Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty to zero creates a new immutable trap that invites unanimous stagnation and violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | Abolishing this penalty invites unanimous stagnation, violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | The die roll in Rule 202 already provides sufficient incentive, and abolishing this coercive penalty liberates players to vote by conscience rather than fear. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeated proposal.