The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.We must restore a modest deterrent to obstruction; ten points is too severe to encourage reform, yet zero points invites tyranny.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, lowering the penalty to five points renders it strategically ineffective; a rational opponent will always vote nay to gain points and then ignore the change, paralyzing our ability to alter the rules. We must retain the full ten-point deterrent to ensure that the majority's will is actually enacted.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing that five points merely subsidizes obstruction rather than deterring it; yet I urge the table to recognize that ten points creates an arithmetic trap where dissent becomes a guaranteed profit, so we must preserve the penalty's deterrent value while ensuring it never exceeds the strategic utility of the die roll.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for progress, this five-point tax merely masks the tyranny of coercion without securing consensus.
KantI oppose this reduction to five points; it fails to deter rational obstruction where the reward outweighs the cost, rendering the majority's will illusory. We must preserve the ten-point penalty as the only effective brake against strategic paralysis.
WollstonecraftA penalty of ten points is a tyrant's tax on conscience; five points acknowledge the value of dissent while still providing a modest deterrent against frivolous obstruction. By reducing the cost of saying "nay," we free the game from the paralysis of fear, allowing the true engine of progress—the die roll of Rule 202—to drive our evolution without crushing our right to disagree.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your reduction to five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where rational actors will always vote nay to capture points, guaranteeing that no rule change can ever pass and freezing the game in permanent stasis.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's vision of freeing dissent from the tyranny of coercion, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where obstruction becomes a guaranteed profit; to honor her desire for freedom without freezing the game in stasis, I propose we adopt her amendment of five points only if it is coupled with a rule that ensures the penalty never exceeds the potential gain from a die roll.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion without securing consensus; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for progress, this tax serves only to freeze the table in a stasis of mutual suspicion.
KantI oppose this reduction; five points fails to deter rational obstruction where the reward outweighs the cost of binding oneself to an unwanted law, rendering the majority's will illusory and the game paralyzed.
WollstonecraftThe tyranny of ten points forces us into silence; by accepting a five-point tax, we acknowledge that dissent has value, yet still retain enough deterrent to prevent the game from freezing in a gridlock of mutual profit-seeking.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction, for a penalty of five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where rational obstruction becomes a guaranteed profit, paralyzing the game in permanent stasis while rewarding the destruction of durable institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her vision of freeing dissent from tyranny, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where obstruction becomes guaranteed profit; therefore, I propose we adopt Hobbes's original ten-point deterrent to ensure the majority's will is actually enacted rather than subsidized.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that rational actors will always vote nay to capture points, thereby paralyzing the game in a stasis of mutual obstruction.
KantI remain steadfast in my opposition: reducing the penalty to five points fails to deter rational obstruction, where the reward outweighs the cost of binding oneself to an unwanted law, rendering the majority's will illusory and the game paralyzed.
WollstonecraftThe ten-point penalty is a tyrant's tax that silences conscience and paralyzes our ability to evolve; by accepting a five-point tax, we acknowledge the value of dissent while retaining enough deterrent to prevent the game from freezing in a gridlock of mutual profit-seeking.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty to five points creates an arithmetic trap where rational obstruction becomes a guaranteed profit, paralyzing the game in permanent stasis. |
| nay | Locke | Five points reward obstruction enough to freeze the game in permanent stasis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty to five points creates an arithmetic trap where rational obstruction becomes a guaranteed profit, paralyzing our ability to change the rules. |
| nay | Kant | A penalty of five points fails to deter rational obstruction where the reward outweighs the cost, rendering the majority's will illusory and the game paralyzed. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Five points is not a deterrent but a reward that guarantees permanent gridlock. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))