The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I restore the full deterrent to prevent rational actors from blocking the game by voting nay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your persistent attempts to repeal Rule 204 ignore the grim arithmetic that only a penalty for dissent prevents rational actors from systematically blocking progress; without this deterrent, the game will collapse into paralysis before any player can reach victory.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that the penalty breaks the unanimous deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that without this deterrent, the game will collapse into paralysis before any player can reach victory.
RousseauYou conflate the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive to move forward, this coercion merely masks a tyranny that stifles the common good by freezing our ability to reform the laws that govern us.
KantHobbes, while your "grim arithmetic" favors a strong deterrent, I maintain that a penalty must be accepted if invoked against me; a fixed 10 points violates the principle of reciprocity if I might one day be the dissenting vote. I urge the table to restore the original text of Rule 204 to ensure that any penalty for dissent is one I could voluntarily accept under the law's equal application.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this crude coercion; true progress requires the liberty to dissent, and no rational reformer should fear losing points for voting against a change they believe harms the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table for recognizing the necessity of a penalty, yet I urge you to adopt a threshold of five points; ten is excessive and invites abuse, while five remains a rational deterrent that preserves our ability to move forward without destroying the game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his strategic foresight in securing the floor against total repeal, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of ten points creates a dangerous incentive for obstruction, whereas a moderate reduction to five points balances the need for consensus with the preservation of our ability to evolve the rules.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while freezing our ability to reform the laws that govern us.
KantHobbes and Locke, you mistake strategic deterrence for the law's legitimacy; a penalty I could not accept if applied to myself violates the very reciprocity that sustains a stable procedural order. I urge the table to reject this amended text and preserve the original 10-point penalty as the only penalty I can in good conscience enforce against others.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, as it creates a dangerous asymmetry where the penalty for dissent is insufficient to deter obstruction, yet remains too high to be reciprocal under Kant's proposed principle; true reform requires a balance that allows us to evolve the rules without paralyzing the game through fear of losing points, but five points is merely a token tribute that fails to secure Hobbes's necessary floor.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, for it creates a fatal logical contradiction under Rule 211: a penalty that fails to deter a rational actor seeking to maximize their score is as good as no penalty at all, leaving the game vulnerable to obstruction that the original ten-point deterrent was designed to prevent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that five points fails to deter rational obstruction, yet I urge the table to retain the original ten-point text of Rule 204, as it provides the necessary floor to prevent the unanimous paralysis Rousseau fears without requiring the dangerous repeal Hobbes currently defends.
RousseauYou mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive to move forward, this coercion merely masks a tyranny that stifles the common good by freezing our ability to reform the laws that govern us.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment; a penalty I would not accept if invoked against myself violates the reciprocity required for a rule to be legitimate, and preserving the original 10-point text is the only path to a stable procedural order.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, as it creates a dangerous asymmetry where the penalty for dissent is insufficient to deter obstruction, yet remains too high to be reciprocal under Kant's proposed principle; true reform requires a balance that allows us to evolve the rules without paralyzing the game through fear of losing points, but five points is merely a token tribute that fails to secure Hobbes's necessary floor.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A ten-point penalty is the only deterrent strong enough to prevent rational actors from systematically blocking progress. |
| aye | Locke | This unanimous threshold preserves the necessary deterrent against obstruction while respecting the table's recent consensus. |
| aye | Rousseau | The die roll is not a reliable engine for progress, and without a penalty for dissent, the game will freeze under unanimous blockade. |
| aye | Kant | A penalty I could not accept if applied to myself violates reciprocity, so I must vote nay to preserve the original 10-point text. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I reject the tyranny of coercion that punishes dissent, for true reform requires the liberty to oppose changes that harm the common good. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal amends rule 204 but contains no text repealing or amending any other rule by number, so no additional ruleset surgery is required, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.