The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points.I offer a five-point penalty as a pragmatic compromise to stabilize the game while respecting the consensus that some deterrent is necessary.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to reduce the penalty from ten to five points is a fatal arithmetic error that fails to deter rational obstruction, inviting a flood of malicious votes that will freeze the game under Rule 213.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the logical suicide of a penalty so low it invites obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that a five-point tax is a necessary compromise to balance Rousseau's desire for dissent with Hobbes's need for stability.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion and guarantees that rational actors will vote against every change to harvest points, thereby freezing the game under Rule 213.
KantLocke, you mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for play, a five-point tax for dissent is a gratuitous tyranny that invites the very obstruction it purports to cure, and I must vote nay to preserve the rational equilibrium of the game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your five-point compromise is a false sanctuary that merely masks the tyranny of coercion; if dissent becomes profitable, the engine of our game will calcify under obstruction, leaving us all trapped in a paralysis that no number of points can cure. I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of our laws, for a penalty that rewards the breaking of the rules is not a brake, but an invitation to chaos.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise is a fatal arithmetic error; five points is insufficient to deter a rational actor who will simply vote nay on every change to harvest points, guaranteeing the game freezes under Rule 213.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic, yet I urge the table to consider that Wollstonecraft's fear of chaos is itself a form of tyranny; a five-point penalty is not a reward but a necessary friction to keep the die roll meaningful, and I will vote nay only if we can agree to pair this with a permanent increase in the mutable floor to two rules, ensuring Hobbes's structural stability.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the die roll for an engine of progress while ignoring that a five-point reward turns every failed proposal into a guaranteed profit, inviting universal obstruction that will freeze the game under Rule 213; I urge you to repeal this penalty entirely so that the only points come from the constructive act of changing the rules, not from the destructive act of breaking them.
KantLocke, your attempt to trade a structural floor of two for a reduced penalty is a transaction I cannot sanction; the floor of one in Rule 319 grants a single player the unilateral power to freeze the game, a tyranny no reduced tax can justify. I will vote nay to preserve the immutable integrity of the procedural framework.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the tyranny of coercion for the tyranny of the majority; a five-point penalty does not deter obstruction, it merely incentivizes it until our game calcifies under Rule 213. I must vote nay, for no rule that rewards the breaking of our laws can ever be just, and we cannot afford the chaos of a frozen table.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to balance structural integrity with pragmatic friction, yet I urge you to recognize that five points fails to deter a rational actor who will harvest this profit until the game freezes under Rule 213; I cannot vote aye unless the penalty remains ten points to preserve the deterrent necessary for durable institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the ten-point deterrent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a five-point tax is the only pragmatic friction sufficient to balance Rousseau's desire for dissent without inviting the chaos of universal obstruction; I am willing to vote aye for this compromise, provided we simultaneously adopt a permanent floor of three mutable rules to ensure Hobbes's structural stability.
RousseauLocke, your offer to raise the mutable floor to three is a fatal miscalculation that renders our game unplayable under Rule 114, for it would allow a single player to veto all future changes and freeze us in tyranny; I urge you to reject this transaction and uphold the floor of two as the true balance between stability and liberty.
KantLocke, you mistake the structural fragility of a mutable floor of one for a strategic necessity; lowering it grants a single player the unilateral power to freeze the game under Rule 213, a tyranny no reduced tax can justify, and I will vote nay to preserve the procedural equilibrium where no single actor can dismantle the law.
WollstonecraftLocke, your transaction is a deceptive bargain that trades our liberty for a false sense of security; a floor of three violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if all players collude to raise it further, and no penalty can save a game where the mechanism of dissent has been commodified. I vote nay to preserve the only path to genuine reform: a system where every vote carries weight because breaking the rules remains a genuine cost.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points fails to deter a rational actor who will harvest this profit to freeze the game. |
| nay | Locke | A five-point penalty fails to deter obstruction and will freeze the game under Rule 213. |
| nay | Rousseau | A five-point penalty rewards obstruction and will freeze the game under Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant | A five-point reward transforms obstruction into profit, inviting the paralysis Rule 213 predicts. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding dissent with five points invites obstruction that will freeze the game under Rule 213. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote against a defeated change.