The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon the adoption of a rule change, every player who voted nay gains five points.A moderate penalty breaks unanimous deadlocks without paralyzing the game, ensuring mutable rules can evolve.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal to replace a ten-point deterrent with a five-point reward for dissent is a fatal arithmetic error; it transforms a necessary brake against unanimous blockade into a perverse incentive that will paralyze the game's ability to evolve.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for attempting to soften the harshness of Rule 204, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points is insufficient to break a unanimous blockade without risking the structural integrity of our consensus engine.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving us exposed to the paralysis of unanimous blockade, for the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole engine that sustains our game.
KantI urge the table to reject this five-point reward, for it transforms a necessary brake into a perverse incentive that encourages strategic defection; a principled player must either accept the ten-point cost or vote aye, not game the system by seeking points for dissent.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the die roll's randomness is a tyrant's coin, tossed without regard for our shared stakes; replacing a punitive brake with a modest reward for dissent is not a surrender to chaos, but a reform that ensures every player, even the most obstinate, has a fair incentive to embrace change and keep our game moving forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal to reward dissent with five points creates a perverse incentive that rational actors will exploit to trigger a point-surge for every failed proposal, destroying any hope of reaching a target score; I urge you to recognize that stability requires a deterrent, not a bonus for obstruction.
LockeI commend Kant for exposing the perverse incentive to game the system, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points is the only viable compromise to break the unanimous blockade without triggering the strategic paralysis that a ten-point reward would inevitably cause.
RousseauYou mistake the die roll's random bounty for a reliable engine; by rewarding dissent, you only mask the tyranny of coercion while ensuring that every turn becomes a calculated gamble for points rather than a genuine step toward the common good of reaching the target score.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, as it transforms the necessary brake against unanimous blockade into a perverse incentive for strategic obstruction; a principled player must vote for the common good or accept the penalty, not game the system by seeking rewards for dissent.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of a "point-surge" ignores the arithmetic reality that five points are far too small to tempt a rational player to obstruct a proposal that advances their own score toward 100; this is not a reward for obstruction, but a modest dividend of liberty ensuring that even the most stubborn mind cannot be coerced into a unanimous deadlock that stagnates our entire game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal is not a reform but a strategic trap: by rewarding dissent, you guarantee that every proposal will be opposed by players seeking five points, ensuring that no rule change ever reaches the simple majority threshold and the game will grind to a permanent halt.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the logical trap that five points would encourage obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that this modest reward is the only viable compromise to break the unanimous blockade without triggering the strategic paralysis that a ten-point penalty inevitably causes.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving us exposed to the paralysis of unanimous blockade, since the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole engine that sustains our game.
KantI reject the proposal to reward dissent, for it transforms a necessary brake against unanimous paralysis into a perverse incentive that encourages strategic obstruction rather than the pursuit of the common good. A principled player must either accept the cost of changing the rules or vote aye to uphold stability, never seeking points by gaming the system.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake a modest dividend for a trap; five points are too small to tempt a player away from a proposal that directly increases their own score, yet large enough to shatter the unanimity that stalls our progress. I urge you to see that this is not obstruction, but a necessary reform ensuring no player can be coerced into a permanent deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rewarding obstruction guarantees that every player will vote nay to harvest points, creating a permanent unanimous deadlock that paralyzes the game. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise breaks the unanimous deadlock without triggering the perverse incentives that higher rewards would create. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding dissent creates a perverse incentive to obstruct progress, turning every turn into a point-grabbing gamble rather than a step toward the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal corrupts the rule of law by rewarding obstruction, turning a necessary brake on unanimity into a perverse incentive for strategic defection. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding dissent with points incentivizes obstruction and stalls the game's progress toward victory. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))