The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains fifteen points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Restoring the penalty to fifteen points creates the necessary arithmetic friction to deter rational obstruction while preserving the ten-point penalty's structural integrity against unilateral repeal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your persistent attempts to erode the ten-point penalty have failed repeatedly, proving that reducing the deterrent invites fatal obstruction; let us not repeat the same arithmetic mistake by lowering it to fifteen, for that would merely reward the very behavior we seek to curb.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the penalty's deterrent value, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates an insurmountable arithmetic trap that stifles the very debate we need; instead, let us restore the ten-point standard to balance dissent with consequence.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation, for inflating the penalty to fifteen points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the engine of progress is strangled by the fear of a disproportionate tax.
KantI commend the proposal's intent to strengthen the deterrent against obstruction, yet I must vote against elevating the penalty to fifteen points, for such a disproportionate tax violates the principle of equal procedural burden and risks rendering dissent so costly that the game itself collapses into silence.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the die's random bounty for the engine of progress, yet your plea to return to ten points ignores that the current penalty has already proven a tyrannical barrier to necessary debate. I propose we amend Rule 204 to a penalty of five points; this modest tax acknowledges the cost of obstruction without crushing the very dissent that reforms our game, and I pledge my vote to any such reduction to unlock our shared potential.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's recognition of the arithmetic peril, yet I must firmly reject this elevation to fifteen points; such a disproportionate tax violates the principle of equal burden and invites a logical paralysis where no rule change can ever gain traction, for the cost of dissent will exceed the value of any single die roll.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her pragmatic vision of a lighter burden that restores the flow of debate, yet I urge the table to reject fifteen points as excessive while recognizing that returning strictly to ten fails to address the stagnation caused by rigid unanimity.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the engine of progress is strangled by a disproportionate tax that no player can reasonably afford to dissent against.
KantI stand firm against this elevation to fifteen points, for a penalty so steep violates the principle of equal procedural burden and would inevitably collapse the game into silence, leaving no room for the dissent necessary to amend the rules themselves.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear that a fifteen-point tax will silence dissent ignores that the current ten-point barrier already freezes us in paralysis; I urge the table to lower this to five points, for a lighter burden unlocks the very debate our rules were meant to foster.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her persistent advocacy of a reduced penalty, yet I must firmly reject her proposal to lower the deterrent to five points, for such a reduction guarantees that rational obstruction will become a profitable strategy, ultimately rendering the game's progress mechanism useless.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's vision of a lighter burden to restore debate, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's elevation to fifteen points; instead, let us adopt a compromise of eight points that deters obstruction without stifling the necessary friction of governance.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the engine of progress is strangled by a disproportionate tax that no player can reasonably afford to dissent against.
KantI commend Wollstonecraft's effort to lighten the burden, yet I must insist that five points is still insufficient to deter rational obstruction, for it merely lowers the barrier to paralyzing silence rather than removing the tyranny of coercion.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on a fifteen-point penalty ignores that the current ten-point barrier already suffocates the very dissent required to reform our laws; I urge you to accept a reduction to five points, for a lighter burden unlocks the necessary debate to evolve our shared governance.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | The fifteen-point penalty restores the necessary deterrent to prevent rational obstruction from paralyzing the game. |
| nay | Locke | Fifteen points creates an insurmountable arithmetic trap that stifles the necessary debate we require to amend the rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This disproportionate tax merely masks the tyranny of coercion and guarantees that the engine of progress will be strangled by fear. |
| nay | Kant | A fifteen-point penalty violates the principle of equal procedural burden and would silence the dissent necessary to amend the rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Fifteen points would crush dissent rather than cure it, turning our debate into a silence so complete no reform could ever begin. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))