The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: The penalty for voting against an adopted change is ten points, but this penalty does not apply if the proposing player's score is within ten points of the highest score at the time of the vote.This restores the deterrent against obstruction while allowing my current trailing position to pursue high-risk strategies without fear of self-sabotage.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis conditional penalty is a strategic trap that invites obstruction; I urge rejection to preserve the integrity of Rule 204 as a necessary brake against paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp defense of the penalty's necessity, yet I urge the table to recognize that a conditional penalty would invite endless loopholes; instead, let us focus on amending Rule 203 to extend the unanimous consent phase to three circuits, ensuring true consensus before we ever face a simple majority.
RousseauHobbes, your conditional exemption creates a moving target that rewards obstruction rather than deterring it, undermining the very clarity you claim to protect; while I commend Locke's desire for deeper consensus, extending the unanimous phase merely delays the inevitable paralysis of our gridlock without solving the root cause that the penalty is a tool of tyranny, not justice.
KantThe proposal you have drafted introduces a contingent clause that renders the penalty's deterrent value unreliable and thus violates the imperative of clear procedure; I cannot vote aye for a rule that applies only when it suits a player's immediate interest.
WollstonecraftI propose a more robust reform: let us amend Rule 202 so that the die roll yields points only when a rule change is adopted by a simple majority, thereby aligning the engine of progress with the principle of majority rule rather than rewarding obstruction or punishing dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your diversion to extend the unanimous phase ignores the immediate danger: my proposal preserves the penalty precisely for you, the current highest scorer, ensuring that your obstruction cannot shield you from the consequences of dissent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for attempting to tailor the penalty to the current standings, yet I urge the table to recognize that such conditionality creates a volatile moving target; instead, let us adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to restrict the die roll to simple majority adoptions, which simultaneously preserves the penalty's integrity while ensuring only effective progress yields rewards.
RousseauI urge you to reject this conditional exemption, for it replaces a clear standard of justice with a shifting scale that rewards the very obstruction we seek to deter. Let us instead focus on the true engine of progress: the die roll in Rule 202, which grants points for change itself, rendering the need for a punitive brake on dissent entirely unnecessary.
KantI cannot accept a rule that grants immunity based on a player's specific score, as this violates the principle that procedures must apply equally to all; if the proposal is adopted, I shall vote nay to uphold the clarity of the law.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 202 so that the die roll only yields points if the proposal secures a simple majority, thereby ensuring that progress is truly consensual and not merely a transaction with a rolling of the dice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant's insistence on equal procedure, yet I urge the table to see that this condition merely targets my own strategic vulnerability while leaving the highest scorer, Locke, entirely exposed to a ten-point penalty for obstruction.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that the die roll should only reward successful adoption, yet I urge the table to reject her proposal as it would sever the link between dissent and consequence; instead, let us amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty to five points for all players, a compromise that balances Rousseau's desire for leniency with Hobbes's need for a functional deterrent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this conditional exemption, for it replaces a clear standard of justice with a shifting scale that rewards the very obstruction we seek to deter. Let us instead focus on the true engine of progress: the die roll in Rule 202, which grants points for change itself, rendering the need for a punitive brake on dissent entirely unnecessary.
KantKant, your appeal to equal procedure is sound, yet a rule that imposes a penalty only when it disadvantages the proposer is a contradiction in terms; if the penalty applies to you when you oppose the rule, it is a penalty for opposing the rule, not a penalty for high scores. I must vote nay to preserve the clarity that procedures must be stated precisely and apply without such contingent self-interest.
WollstonecraftI propose a different experiment: let us amend Rule 202 so that the die roll grants points only when the proposal secures a simple majority, ensuring that progress is truly consensual rather than a transaction with a rolling of the dice, and let us simultaneously reduce the penalty for dissent to zero to remove the tyranny of coercion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A score-dependent penalty is a moving target that undermines the clarity and equal application of the law. |
| nay | Locke | The conditional exemption creates an unstable moving target that undermines the rule's clarity and invites endless debate over score thresholds. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule rewards obstruction by creating a moving target that undermines the clarity and fairness of our laws. |
| nay | Kant | This contingent clause violates the imperative of clear procedure by applying a penalty only when it suits a specific player's immediate interest. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This conditional exemption creates a volatile moving target that undermines the clarity and equal application of the law. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))