The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose a moderate 5-point penalty to satisfy Hobbes and Kant's demand for deterrence while offering Rousseau a tangible compromise to break her deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed reduction to five points fails to deter rational obstruction; a penalty must be sufficient to outweigh the expected value of a failed proposal, and five points does not achieve this. I urge the table to maintain the established ten-point deterrent, which alone preserves the structural integrity required for durable play.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the ten-point deterrent's necessity, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points offers a pragmatic middle ground which balances Rousseau's desire to reduce obstruction with a penalty sufficient enough to deter irrational dissent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that rational actors will vote nay to steal points, thereby breaking the engine of the game.
KantI must reject this compromise, for a penalty of five points fails to outweigh the expected value of a failed proposal under the current voting threshold, thereby encouraging rational obstruction that undermines the game's stability.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the ten-point deterrent's necessity, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points offers a pragmatic middle ground which balances Rousseau's desire to reduce obstruction with a penalty sufficient enough to deter irrational dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your five-point penalty fails to deter rational obstruction; I urge the table to reject this proposal and maintain the ten-point deterrent to preserve our procedural fortress.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing five points as a pragmatic compromise, yet I urge the table to see that Hobbes's rigid defense of ten points ignores the reality that any fixed penalty can eventually be exploited; I propose we amend this rule to add a clause allowing the penalty amount itself to be adjusted by simple majority after the next circuit, preserving deterrence while granting us the flexibility to adapt as the game evolves.
RousseauI urge you to reject this slippery slope of adjusting penalties after the fact; such a mechanism merely masks the tyranny of coercion by promising a future tyranny of flexibility, whereas the fixed ten-point penalty provides the only stable brake against rational obstruction.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, as a five-point penalty fails to deter the rational calculation of obstruction under the current majority threshold, and your suggestion to make the penalty itself mutable merely replaces one tyranny with another by inviting endless procedural erosion.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for recognizing that five points invites obstruction, yet I urge the table to see that a ten-point penalty is a tyrannical tax on dissent that stifles the very experimentation we need to reform this game; instead of punishing reformers who cast necessary nay votes, we should repeal this penalty entirely and rely on the die roll in Rule 202 as the sole engine of reward, ensuring that only successful change brings points, not the suppression of debate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to make the penalty amount itself mutable is a fatal logical error that invites infinite regression and destabilizes the very order you claim to protect; I urge the table to reject this slippery slope and maintain a fixed, sufficient deterrent to preserve our procedural fortress.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the danger of mutable penalties, yet I urge the table to adopt my fixed five-point compromise as a necessary brake on obstruction that preserves the die roll as our true engine without inviting the tyranny of rigid unanimity.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to make the penalty itself mutable merely trades the tyranny of a fixed tax for the tyranny of endless procedure, inviting the very erosion of stability we seek to avoid. I urge you to reject this slippery slope and maintain the fixed ten-point deterrent as the only brake capable of preserving the game's structural integrity for all.
KantLocke's proposal to make the penalty amount itself mutable invites the very procedural erosion I oppose, replacing a clear, fixed duty with an unstable mechanism of endless revision that undermines the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI commend the table for recognizing that a ten-point tax on dissent is a tyrannical brake that stifles the very experimentation required to evolve our game; instead of punishing necessary nay votes, we must repeal this penalty entirely so that the only reward comes from the successful adoption of reforms, ensuring that every player's stake grows through progress rather than through the suppression of debate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points fails to deter rational obstruction and threatens the game's structural stability. |
| aye | Locke | I support this pragmatic compromise to balance Rousseau's desire for flexibility with a penalty sufficient to deter obstruction. |
| nay | Rousseau | A mere five points fails to deter the rational calculus of obstruction that would starve the game of its only engine. |
| nay | Kant | A fixed five-point penalty is insufficient to deter rational obstruction under simple majority voting, and repealing the rule to replace it with a lower tax invites a slippery slope toward procedural chaos. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding dissent with points incentivizes obstruction and undermines the stability of our reforms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset authorizes a point deduction for a defeated proposal (Rule 206 is the only relevant rule and it does not contain a scoring mechanism), so no score changes are applied.