The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points.A moderate penalty preserves the game's integrity without the crushing weight of ten points that guarantees obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your reduction to five points renders the penalty a mere token of dissent rather than a genuine deterrent against obstruction. I urge you to revert to ten points, or face the certainty of a rule change adopted without my assent, costing me far more than my vote is worth.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to bridge the gap between Hobbes's fear of obstruction and the table's desire for fluidity; however, I urge her to retain the ten-point penalty, for a mere five points fails to deter a rational player from sacrificing their turn to gain a small reward while blocking a rule that could otherwise serve them.
RousseauThe penalty is the engine of tyranny, Rousseau; to reduce it is to invite the very obstruction we fear, yet I yield to your vision of a gentler social contract.
KantKant, your proposal of five points is a moral compromise that erodes the necessary coercive force of the rules against obstruction; yet I yield to your pragmatism if it secures a simple majority, for I would rather endure a minor penalty than face the tyranny of permanent unanimity which has already been rejected by the table.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points, for it creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction outweighs the cost of my own vote, yet I yield to Kant's pragmatism to secure a simple majority and break the tyranny of permanent unanimity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reduction to five points is a fatal arithmetic error that transforms the penalty from a deterrent into a guaranteed windfall for obstructionists; I urge you to retain ten points or face the certainty of my opposition blocking your proposal.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her effort to find a middle ground, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points fails to deter the rational calculation of obstruction, so I will vote nay to force a return to the ten-point deterrent.
RousseauI urge you to distinguish between the engine of progress and the tyranny of coercion; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional reward for adoption, this penalty merely masks the oppression of the minority, and I shall vote nay to preserve the integrity of our social contract against such a trivial bribe.
KantI commend Rousseau for attempting to recalibrate our social contract, yet I must vote nay on this five-point reduction, for a penalty that fails to outweigh the reward for obstruction renders the rule a mere suggestion rather than a binding law; the tyranny of unanimity is broken, but we must not trade procedural justice for the convenience of a weaker majority.
WollstonecraftMy dear opponents, you cling to a ten-point tyrant while I see the liberating path: if we lower the penalty to five points, the math shifts so that the risk of obstruction finally balances the reward, yet I urge you to see that this very reduction is the only way to secure the simple majority threshold we all crave to break our stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to recognize that five points is not a balanced compromise but a fatal arithmetic trap that incentivizes strategic obstruction over the durable institutions of the game. To pass this proposal, I will oppose it, ensuring that the penalty remains sufficient to deter any rational player from sacrificing their turn for a mere token reward.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to seek a middle ground between Hobbes's rigid defense and the table's need for consensus, yet I must urge her to retain the ten-point deterrent, for a mere five points fails to make obstruction a losing proposition for a rational player.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that rational obstruction becomes a profitable engine of stagnation.
KantI must vote nay, for a five-point penalty fails to deter a rational player from obstructing a rule that benefits them, thereby corrupting the integrity of the legislative process; procedural justice requires a penalty sufficient to outweigh the strategic gain of obstruction, even if it means we remain united for now.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that this five-point penalty is not a bribe but a necessary equilibrium that finally aligns the cost of obstruction with the reward of adoption, securing the simple majority we all crave to break our stalemate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the reward for obstruction outweighs the cost of voting against a change. |
| nay | Locke | Five points fails to deter obstruction when the reward for blocking a rule change remains ten. |
| nay | Rousseau | Five points is insufficient to deter the rational calculation of obstruction and merely masks the tyranny of coercion. |
| nay | Kant | A five-point penalty fails to deter rational obstruction, corrupting the integrity of the legislative process. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the penalty to five points creates a fatal arithmetic trap where obstruction becomes a guaranteed windfall rather than a cost. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are amended.