The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points.The penalty must be raised to 20 points to truly deter obstruction and protect the game's stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's consistent defense of structural deterrence, yet I urge the table to recognize that twenty points creates a rational veto for every player except me; the game requires not just a deterrent, but a near-impossible obstacle to obstructionism.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that twenty points creates a rational veto, yet I urge the table to consider that this extreme penalty may violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if unanimity becomes the only path to adoption.
RousseauI urge you to reject this disproportionate penalty, for twenty points transforms the penalty from a deterrent into a tyranny that guarantees your own victory while enslaving us all to your will; such a rule would fracture the common good by making the game's only engine of progress, the die roll, the sole avenue for justice.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal not merely because twenty points is excessive, but because it violates the principle of equal procedure by granting a single player the power to freeze the game's evolution indefinitely; a rule that cannot be amended due to its own prohibitive cost is not a law, but a tyranny.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this disproportionate tyranny, for a penalty of twenty points transforms the law into a tool of enslavement that guarantees Hobbes's victory while stripping the rest of us of any hope of reform or progress; true justice requires a penalty that deters obstruction without rendering the game's evolution impossible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal because it violates the spirit of durable institutions by creating a rule that is functionally immune to amendment; such a tyranny guarantees the game's stagnation and renders your victory hollow, for a score won without the possibility of challenge is not a victory, but a prison.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the penalty's deterrent value, yet I urge the table to recognize that twenty points creates a rational veto that violates Rule 114 by making further rule changes impermissible, so I propose we amend the floor to a penalty of fifteen points to preserve both deterrence and the game's viability.
RousseauI urge you to reject this new tyranny, for elevating the penalty to fifteen points merely swaps one form of enslavement for another; the die roll is the true engine of our common good, and any rule that shackles our hands with such a heavy tax on dissent fractures the very spirit of just governance.
KantI urge the table to recognize that a penalty of twenty points violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, for no rational actor will ever support a proposal that costs them twenty points; such a rule would freeze the game's evolution and grant a single player the power to declare a permanent tyranny, which I cannot in good conscience support.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this proposal, for a twenty-point penalty does not deter obstruction but guarantees the game's stagnation by making the die roll the sole engine of progress, stripping every player except Hobbes of any stake in the evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's recognition of the structural peril, yet fifteen points remains a fatal miscalculation that still grants a rational veto to four players; we must preserve the ten-point deterrent that ensures at least one dissenting vote is too costly to cast, thereby guaranteeing the game's continued evolution.
LockeI commend Hobbes for defending the ten-point deterrent against obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current path has exhausted all reasonable compromises on the penalty; since Rule 204's text is currently locked at ten points and no amendment has passed, I propose we table this new twenty-point proposal to preserve Rule 114, allowing us to focus our collective effort on securing a viable floor of mutable rules rather than creating an unamendable tyranny.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for elevating the penalty to twenty points or even fifteen transforms the game from a contest of reason into a prison of tyranny where Hobbes alone can dictate the laws; such a rule violates the common good by making the die roll the sole engine of progress and guarantees the stagnation of our shared existence.
KantI must oppose this twenty-point penalty as a violation of Rule 114, for it would render future rule changes impermissible by guaranteeing a unanimous nay; such a rule is not a law but a tyranny that freezes our shared existence, and I cannot accept a system that grants any single player the power to enslave us all.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for a twenty-point penalty does not deter obstruction but guarantees the game's stagnation by making the die roll the sole engine of progress, stripping every player except Hobbes of any stake in the evolution of our laws.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This penalty exceeds the rational threshold, guaranteeing unanimous rejection and violating Rule 114 by freezing future rule changes. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose this proposal because a twenty-point penalty creates a rational veto that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | A penalty of twenty points creates a rational veto that freezes all future rule changes, violating Rule 114 and destroying the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 114 by making unanimous consent impossible and rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A twenty-point penalty creates a rational veto that guarantees game stagnation rather than deterring obstruction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a vote against a defeated proposal.