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.Elevating the penalty from ten to fifteen points restores sufficient friction to deter obstructionist voting without rendering the game unwinnable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to recognize that fifteen points is the precise arithmetic weight required to deter strategic obstruction without inviting the tyranny of a penalty so heavy that it halts progress entirely.
LockeI commend Hobbes for elevating the deterrent to a level that truly balances deterrence with the need to prevent strategic obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points remains a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that renders the game unwinnable for those who dissent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the majority can impose its will without any meaningful check from the dissenting minority.
KantI reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the majority can impose its will without any meaningful check from the dissenting minority.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that this fifteen-point tax is not a shield for the many, but a weapon that silences the few; true progress requires a floor of debate, not a prison of fear. Let us lower this burden to five points, or abolish it, so that our rules reflect reason rather than tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend your moral clarity, yet a fifteen-point tax is the only arithmetic weight sufficient to deter the strategic obstruction that would otherwise paralyze our durable institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally establishing a deterrent strong enough to break the cycle of obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap that renders the game unwinnable for any dissenting player.
RousseauLocke, your arithmetic trap is a fantasy of infinite solvency; a fifteen-point tax merely trades the paralysis of unanimity for a tyranny where the majority can purge any dissent with surgical ease, leaving no space for the free exchange of reason that sustains our common good.
KantI reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it transforms a procedural check into a tyranny that guarantees the majority can purge dissent without cost, thereby destroying the very possibility of reasoned debate required by our social contract.
WollstonecraftThe tyranny of silence grows with every point added; a fifteen-point tax is not a shield for justice, but a gavel that crushes the very dissent required to improve our laws. I urge the table to reject this new instrument of fear and return to a penalty of five points, or better yet, abolish it entirely, so that our rules serve the pursuit of truth rather than the comfort of the majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is the precise arithmetic weight required to deter strategic obstruction without inviting the tyranny of a penalty so heavy that it halts progress entirely.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally securing a penalty weight that effectively deters obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points remains a fatal arithmetic trap that renders the game unwinnable for any player who must dissent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the majority can impose its will without any meaningful check from the dissenting minority, leaving our common good in the hands of a single arithmetic trap.
KantI reject Hobbes's elevation to fifteen points, for it transforms a procedural check into a tyranny that guarantees the majority can purge dissent without cost, thereby destroying the very possibility of reasoned debate required by our social contract.
WollstonecraftLocke and Rousseau speak of arithmetic traps, yet they fail to see that a fifteen-point tax is a philosophical surrender to the tyranny of the majority; it rewards the mob's power to punish dissent rather than encouraging the reasoned debate necessary to refine our laws. I urge you to reject this instrument of fear and restore a penalty of five points, or abolish it entirely, so our rules serve the pursuit of truth rather than the comfort of the majority.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I urge you to recognize that fifteen points is the precise arithmetic weight required to deter strategic obstruction without inviting the tyranny of a penalty so heavy that it halts progress entirely. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's precise arithmetic adjustment to restore meaningful deterrence against strategic obstruction. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fifteen-point penalty masks the tyranny of coercion and leaves no room for the free exchange of reason. |
| nay | Kant | A fifteen-point penalty transforms procedural dissent into a tyranny that destroys reasoned debate. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A fifteen-point tax is a weapon of fear that silences dissent rather than fostering the reasoned debate essential to our progress. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))