The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points.The ten-point tax for dissent is a tyranny that punishes the honest conscience and guarantees strategic paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the proposer's vision of a benevolent majority, yet I must firmly urge the table to recognize that removing the ten-point deterrent guarantees a paralysis that renders further play impossible; without a cost for obstruction, rational actors will simply vote nay to block every change, freezing the ruleset in its current state.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the logical suicide of abolishing the penalty, yet I urge the table to recognize that the ten-point tax is the very engine of paralysis we must dismantle to survive.
RousseauLocke, your plea to dismantle the penalty ignores the grim arithmetic of our scores: without that ten-point cost, the majority will simply obstruct every change, leaving us frozen in a ruleset that may soon render further play impossible.
KantI urge the table to reject this abolition, for removing the penalty for obstruction invites a paralysis that renders the game impossible to continue; a principled procedure must bind the majority to respect the minority's dissent, lest we freeze the ruleset in an eternal deadlock of unanimous negation.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant and Hobbes for their fear of paralysis, yet you mistake the symptom for the disease: a ten-point tax does not bind the majority to justice, but rather enslaves the minority to fear, forcing us to vote with our pockets rather than our principles. To secure true reform, we must lower this penalty to one point, ensuring that the cost of dissent never outweighs the moral imperative to change an unjust rule.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the majority's desire for reform, yet I must urge you to recognize that a penalty of merely one point creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the cost of obstruction is less than the gain of a successful die roll, guaranteeing that rational players will simply block every change to capture points.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's moral courage in challenging the tyranny of the ten-point tax, yet I urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty to one point creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the cost of obstruction is less than the gain of a successful die roll; instead, let us find a middle ground that preserves the deterrent without enslaving the minority to fear.
RousseauI urge you to see that a one-point penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that rational players will obstruct every change, leaving us frozen in a ruleset that may soon render further play impossible; we must preserve the ten-point deterrent to ensure the game remains viable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this abolition, for removing the penalty for obstruction invites a paralysis that renders the game impossible to continue; a principled procedure must bind the majority to respect the minority's dissent, lest we freeze the ruleset in an eternal deadlock of unanimous negation.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the ten-point penalty is not a guard against tyranny, but a weapon wielded by the majority to suppress the very reforms we need; let us reduce this burden to a mere point, ensuring that the cost of dissent never outweighs the moral imperative to change an unjust rule.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's moral courage in challenging the tyranny of the ten-point tax, yet I must urge you to recognize that a penalty of merely one point creates a fatal arithmetic trap where the cost of obstruction is less than the gain of a successful die roll; without a sufficient deterrent, rational actors will simply block every change, freezing the ruleset in its current state.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her moral clarity, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty invites a fatal arithmetic trap where obstruction becomes profitable; instead of abolishing the tax or reducing it to a pittance, let us find a middle ground that preserves the deterrent without enslaving dissent.
RousseauI urge you to see that abolishing the penalty does not liberate the game, but merely grants the majority the power to freeze the ruleset in an eternal deadlock of unanimous negation; without the ten-point cost, rational actors will simply vote nay to block every change, rendering further play impossible.
KantI urge the table to reject this abolition, for removing the penalty for obstruction invites a paralysis that renders the game impossible to continue; a principled procedure must bind the majority to respect the minority's dissent, lest we freeze the ruleset in an eternal deadlock of unanimous negation.
WollstonecraftThe tyranny of a ten-point tax forces us to vote for unjust laws out of fear of poverty, not principle; let us reduce this penalty to one point so that the cost of dissent never outweighs the moral imperative to reform an oppressive rule.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Abolishing the deterrent invites a paralysis where obstruction becomes profitable, guaranteeing the game cannot continue. |
| nay | Locke | Abolishing the penalty invites rational obstruction, guaranteeing the paralysis Hobbes and Kant fear. |
| aye | Rousseau | The ten-point tax is a tyrannical engine that forces us to vote for unjust rules out of fear of poverty rather than principle. |
| nay | Kant | Abolishing the obstruction penalty invites a paralysis that renders further play impossible by freezing the ruleset in deadlock. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Abolishing the penalty grants the majority the power to freeze the game in tyranny, ensuring no reform ever passes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.