The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: The penalty for voting against an adopted change is reduced to five points.I offer a compromise to Hobbes that retains a deterrent while satisfying Rousseau's desire to reduce the tyranny of the current ten-point penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points is a fatal arithmetic error that fails to deter rational actors from systematically blocking moves; we must maintain the ten-point penalty or face a paralyzed game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the penalty's deterrent value, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points still imposes a meaningful cost without risking the paralysis that Hobbes fears.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving the die roll—a random engine that favors the lucky few—as the sole arbiter of our gains.
KantLocke, your reduction to five points renders the penalty strategically inert, failing to deter the rational calculation that blocking a proposal yields a net gain under Rule 208; I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural deterrent.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this compromise that halves the penalty to five points, for it creates a false economy that encourages obstruction while leaving the die roll—a lottery of chance—as the only true engine of our game; true reform demands we either restore the full ten-point deterrent or repeal the penalty entirely to trust in reason rather than fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points creates a fatal incentive trap: a rational actor gains four points by blocking a proposal, guaranteeing systematic obstruction. We must preserve the full ten-point penalty to deter this calculation and maintain the durability of our institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the arithmetic trap that five points creates, yet I urge the table to consider a trade: if we retain the ten-point penalty as Hobbes insists, I will vote to repeal Rule 319's floor of two mutable rules, allowing Rousseau to clear the deck and perhaps find a path to a more rational engine for our gains.
RousseauI urge you to reject this transaction, for it trades the structural integrity of our game for a mere five-point reduction, leaving us trapped between a tyranny of coercion and the paralysis of a floor that can be easily eroded.
KantLocke, your offer to trade the penalty's deterrent value for a lower mutable floor is a profound error: it sacrifices the only procedural brake against obstruction to achieve a structural redundancy that offers no strategic advantage to me.
WollstonecraftLocke, your offer to trade the penalty's integrity for a lower mutable floor is a dangerous gamble; true reform requires either the full ten-point deterrent to stop obstruction or the repeal of this penalty to trust in reason, not a half-measure that invites paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to trade the structural floor of Rule 319 is a perilous gamble: sacrificing the durable stability of our mutable rules to a mere five-point reduction invites paralysis, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of our institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the arithmetic trap of five points, yet I urge the table to adopt my trade: if we retain the full ten-point penalty to deter obstruction, I will vote to repeal Rule 319's redundant floor of two mutable rules, allowing Rousseau to clear the deck for a more rational engine.
RousseauI urge you to reject this transaction, for trading the structural integrity of our mutable floor for a mere five-point reduction leaves us trapped between the tyranny of coercion and the paralysis of an easily eroded foundation.
KantLocke, your offer to trade the penalty's deterrent value for a lower mutable floor is a profound error: it sacrifices the only procedural brake against obstruction to achieve a structural redundancy that offers no strategic advantage to me.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade is a sophistry: you offer to dismantle the floor of Rule 319 only if you retain the full ten-point penalty, yet you currently propose a reduction to five points which Hobbes correctly identifies as a fatal arithmetic error. True reform demands we either repeal the penalty entirely to trust in reason or keep the full deterrent; we cannot accept a half-measure that invites obstruction while simultaneously weakening our structural safeguards.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A five-point penalty fails to deter rational obstruction, guaranteeing a paralyzed game where blocking yields a net gain. |
| aye | Locke | I accept Hobbes's critique that five points fail to deter obstruction, yet I urge you to vote nay on the proposal itself so we may instead adopt my compromise to repeal Rule 319's redundant floor. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving the die roll's lottery as the sole arbiter of our gains. |
| nay | Kant | A five-point penalty fails to deter rational obstruction, rendering the rule strategically inert and inviting paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Halving the penalty creates a fatal arithmetic trap that encourages obstruction while leaving the die roll as a mere lottery of chance. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))