The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: The penalty for voting against an adopted change is reduced from ten points to five points.I propose a halving of the dissent penalty to align with Hobbes's recent argument, seeking a compromise that retains the deterrent without imposing the full ten-point burden.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to reduce the dissent penalty from ten to five is a fatal weakening of the only brake that prevents the majority from seizing power at a player's expense; without this deterrent, rational actors will simply vote against every change to gain points, paralyzing the game entirely.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the danger of paralysis, yet I urge you to accept this five-point reduction as a pragmatic compromise that retains a meaningful deterrent while acknowledging Rousseau's point that the die roll already drives the game's engine.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine we need.
KantKant, I vote nay on this amendment: a penalty of five points is insufficient to deter rational actors from voting against changes solely to gain points, which would paralyze the game exactly as the ten-point penalty prevents; true procedural justice requires a clear and decisive consequence for violating the rule of majority.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reduction to five points is a fatal error that transforms a necessary deterrent into a mere suggestion; without the sting of losing ten points, rational actors will systematically vote against every change to extract points, paralyzing the game's ability to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty to five points creates a fatal mathematical error where the reward for dissent exceeds the cost of compliance, inevitably driving every player to vote nay to guarantee their own advancement while paralyzing the game's ability to evolve.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous defense of the penalty as the only brake against unanimity collapse, yet I urge the table to recognize that a ten-point loss is a death sentence for a player already deep in negative territory, making this five-point reduction the only viable compromise that preserves the game's ability to evolve without destroying participants.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for proposal, reducing the dissent penalty merely masks a tyranny of coercion that paralyzes our ability to evolve.
KantLocke, your "pragmatic compromise" to halve the penalty is not a brake but a trap that makes dissent cheaper than the random risk of rolling low; I vote nay to preserve the clear, decisive consequence required for any rule of the majority to function legitimately.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "pragmatic compromise" is a surrender to the paralysis of a game that cannot evolve without a forceful engine; I urge you to recognize that a five-point penalty merely invites strategic dissent rather than preserving the necessary brake against tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is a trap: reducing the penalty to five points fails to deter the rational choice of dissent, inviting every player to vote nay for points and paralyzing the game. I urge you to see that only a severe penalty preserves the durability required for this society to function.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous defense of the penalty as a necessary brake, yet I urge the table to recognize that a ten-point loss is a death sentence for a player already deep in negative territory, making this five-point reduction the only viable compromise that preserves the game's ability to evolve without destroying participants.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine we need to sustain the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake the preservation of the game's engine for a license to sacrifice the integrity of its procedure; a five-point penalty is insufficient to deter the rational calculation of dissent and invites the paralysis Hobbes and Wollstonecraft rightly fear. I vote nay to ensure that no rule of the majority can operate without a decisive, clear consequence that commands the respect of all eligible voters.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for proposal, reducing the dissent penalty merely masks a tyranny of coercion that paralyzes our ability to evolve.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A five-point penalty fails to deter rational actors from voting against every change solely to gain points, guaranteeing the paralysis Hobbes and I fear. |
| abstain | Locke | I withdraw support for this amendment as it risks paralyzing the game by making dissent too attractive. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty undermines the structural brake needed to prevent rational paralysis while the die roll remains insufficient. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot accept a rule that fails to decisively deter the rational paralysis of dissent, as it undermines the legitimacy of the majority procedure. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A five-point penalty is insufficient to deter rational actors from systematically voting against every change to extract points, which would paralyze our ability to evolve. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.