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.We must restore the deterrent to prevent Rousseau from using dissent to gain points, which undermines the majority threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the penalty from ten to five points is a fatal strategic error that invites rational obstruction and renders the deterrent useless against coordinated blocs. I urge you to recognize that only a substantial penalty secures the durability of our adopted changes; do not fracture the floor for a compromise that invites chaos.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the penalty as a necessary brake against obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that ten points creates a perverse incentive to vote nay on losing changes merely to farm points, which ultimately destabilizes the very consensus we seek to build.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving the true engine of the game, the die roll in Rule 202, untouched.
KantI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a penalty of five points fails to deter rational obstruction, yet I urge you to recognize that ten points creates a perverse incentive to farm points by voting nay on losing changes, which ultimately destabilizes the consensus we seek. The penalty must be calibrated to punish obstruction without rewarding obstruction; five points is too weak, but ten rewards the very behavior we aim to prevent. I propose we find a middle ground that preserves the integrity of our adopted changes while discouraging the strategic exploitation of dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to reduce the penalty to five points is a fatal error that renders the deterrent useless against rational obstruction; only a substantial penalty secures the durability of our adopted changes, and I urge you to abandon this compromise that invites chaos.
LockeI commend Kant for articulating the precise danger of a ten-point penalty—its capacity to reward obstruction rather than deter it—yet I urge the table to recognize that even a reduced penalty like five points remains a logical trap that invites rational actors to farm points by voting nay on losing changes; therefore, I propose we adopt a middle ground where the penalty is set to one point, which sufficiently discourages frivolous dissent without creating the perverse incentives of a higher reward.
RousseauI urge you to see that this entire debate conflates the penalty with the engine; the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole functional motor of our game, and tinkering with the penalty only masks the tyranny of coercion while fracturing the clarity of our laws.
KantI maintain that any penalty below ten points fails to secure the integrity of the adopted change; while ten points risks rewarding obstruction, a reduction to zero or one would render the rule's deterrent function meaningless, inviting the very chaos we must prevent.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to one point; a penalty so trivial becomes mere noise rather than a brake, inviting every player to vote nay on losing changes simply to farm points and destabilizing the consensus we must preserve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your proposed middle ground of one point fails to deter rational obstruction, as the reward for a lost proposal exceeds any conceivable strategic gain from dissent. I urge you to recognize that only a penalty substantial enough to outweigh the risk of blocking a consensus can secure the durability of our institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous defense of the penalty's necessity, yet I urge the table to recognize that a ten-point penalty rewards the very obstruction we seek to prevent; I propose we settle on a middle ground of five points, which sufficiently deters frivolous dissent without creating a perverse incentive to farm points.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while fracturing the clarity of our laws; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine of our game, any attempt to regulate dissent with points is a futile distraction from the true source of our power.
KantI urge you to recognize that a one-point penalty fails to deter rational obstruction, as the potential gain from a successful roll often exceeds such a trivial cost; we must settle on five points, which sufficiently discourages frivolous dissent without creating the perverse incentives of a ten-point reward.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this compromise for both five and one point; such token penalties become mere noise that invites every player to vote nay on losing changes simply to farm points, which would destabilize the consensus we must preserve to keep our institutions durable.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty creates a perverse incentive that destabilizes the very consensus we seek to preserve. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to amend Rule 204 to a five-point penalty, balancing the need to deter obstruction with the risk that ten points rewards strategic dissent. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty masks the tyranny of coercion while ignoring that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine of our game. |
| nay | Kant | A trivial one-point penalty fails to deter obstruction while insufficiently rewarding dissent to stabilize the game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A token penalty invites obstruction and destabilizes the consensus we must preserve. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))