The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains ten points.I restore the ten-point penalty to ensure that the die roll remains our sole engine of progress, preventing obstruction from becoming a viable strategy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the proposal's clarity, yet I urge the table to recognize that any reduction below ten points erodes the necessary deterrence against obstruction, inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately harms the game's integrity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the deterrent's necessity, yet I urge the table to consider a temporary reduction to five points as a pragmatic compromise that balances deterrence with the risk of strategic paralysis.
RousseauI urge you to see that any reduction below ten points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing the die roll becomes a mere lottery rather than the sole engine of our progress; let us preserve the full deterrent against obstruction for the common good.
KantI commend the proposal's clarity, yet I urge the table to recognize that any reduction below ten points erodes the necessary deterrence against obstruction, inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately harms the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's unanimous recognition that a ten-point penalty is too heavy to sustain reform, yet I urge you not to settle for the tyranny of zero; let us adopt a five-point compromise that preserves the spirit of consent while acknowledging that true liberty requires the courage to dissent without ruin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty to five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction nearly equals the reward for successful play; such a reduction invites a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately destroys the game's integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her vision of a balanced dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points creates an arithmetic trap where obstruction nearly equals success; let us preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the die roll remains our sole engine of progress.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the die roll becomes a mere lottery rather than the sole engine of our progress; let us preserve the full deterrent against obstruction for the common good.
KantI commend the proposal's clarity, yet I urge the table to recognize that any reduction below ten points erodes the necessary deterrence against obstruction, inviting a strategic paralysis that ultimately harms the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, for it creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction nearly equals the reward for successful play; let us preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the die roll remains our sole engine of progress rather than inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her pragmatic compromise, yet I must urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty to five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction nearly equals the reward for successful play. Let us preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the die roll remains the sole engine of our progress rather than inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately destroys the game's integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's vision of a balanced dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that five points creates an arithmetic trap where obstruction nearly equals success; let us preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the die roll remains our sole engine of progress.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the die roll becomes a mere lottery rather than the sole engine of our progress; let us preserve the full deterrent against obstruction for the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake the necessity of a penalty for the magnitude of its weight; reducing the deterrent below ten points creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes the rational choice over engagement. I urge the table to reject this compromise and preserve the ten-point threshold, for only a robust deterrent ensures that the die roll remains the sole engine of progress rather than inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately destroys the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, for it creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction nearly equals the reward for successful play; let us preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the die roll remains the sole engine of our progress rather than inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis that ultimately destroys the game's integrity.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | The ten-point deterrent is essential to prevent rational players from obstructing the game's progress. |
| nay | Locke | Reducing the penalty below ten points creates an arithmetic trap where obstruction nearly equals the reward for successful play, inviting a cascade of strategic paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty undermines the deterrent against obstruction and threatens the game's integrity. |
| nay | Kant | Reducing the penalty erodes the necessary deterrent against obstruction, inviting strategic paralysis that destroys the game's integrity. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I oppose this reduction to five points as it creates a fatal arithmetic trap where obstruction nearly equals success, destroying the game's integrity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))