The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains three points.I propose reducing the dissent tax from ten to three points to create a stable, low-friction compromise that deters obstruction without crushing the spirit of debate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction to three points is a fatal miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction while rewarding the very behavior you claim to penalize. I urge you to reject this weak compromise and instead support the fifteen-point standard established in turn 181 as the only rational defense of our institutions. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for his commitment to a robust deterrent, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points invites a stalemate that freezes our ability to adapt; I propose we meet at five, the threshold where Hobbes's arithmetic of justice and my need for flexibility finally align.
RousseauLocke, your retreat from the ten-point standard to merely three points betrays the very justice you claim to uphold; it renders the penalty so negligible that it ceases to be a deterrent and becomes merely another token of the tyranny of the majority.
KantLocke, you cannot claim five points as a rational compromise when the arithmetic clearly demonstrates that any penalty below ten fails to deter the majority from legislating against its own interests; I urge you to abandon this weak half-measure and join the unanimous defense of the ten-point standard as the only procedure that preserves the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftThe three-point penalty is a grotesque caricature of justice that rewards obstruction by granting points to those who block progress; I urge the table to reject this insult to reason and instead adopt the five-point standard, a modest but necessary friction that preserves the right to dissent without incentivizing tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your descent from fifteen to three points reveals the same fatal weakness as your earlier five-point proposals: you confuse a mere nuisance with a structural deterrent. Three points reward the obstructionist rather than punishing the act, creating a perverse incentive that will inevitably freeze our ability to adapt; I urge you to abandon this arithmetic suicide and defend the fifteen-point floor essential to our durable institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that three points collapses the deterrent entirely, yet I urge the table to adopt a middle ground where the penalty is exactly five points—a figure that respects Hobbes's arithmetic of justice while allowing me the flexibility to prevent a permanent stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your compromise of five points is merely a cosmetic adjustment that leaves the tyranny of the majority intact; without a penalty of ten points, the very act of dissent becomes a profitable engine for obstruction, and I urge you to reject this half-measure that masks the corruption of our institutions.
KantLocke, you mistake the nature of procedural justice for mere arithmetic; reducing the penalty to five points fails to account for the strategic calculus of a rational voter facing a simple majority, thereby encouraging the very obstructionism we claim to punish. I urge you to reject this weak compromise and join us in reaffirming the ten-point standard as the only threshold that preserves the integrity of our legislative process.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this trifling penalty of three points, for it renders the cost of obstruction so negligible that it ceases to be a deterrent and merely rewards the obstructionist with a token of victory; instead, we must adopt the five-point standard, a modest yet necessary friction that preserves the right to dissent without incentivizing the tyranny of the majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to restore equilibrium, yet three points remains a fatal miscalculation that rewards obstruction rather than deterring it; I urge the table to adopt the five-point standard, a modest friction that preserves our durable institutions without inviting the paralysis of a fifteen-point tyranny.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally recognizing that three points fails to deter obstruction, yet I urge the table to accept five as the precise equilibrium where justice and flexibility coexist without inviting the paralysis of a higher penalty.
RousseauLocke, your descent to three points confirms that you mistake a token of victory for a genuine deterrent; without the full weight of ten points, the penalty cannot counter the strategic calculus of obstruction, and I urge you to reject this compromise that leaves our institutions vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority.
KantLocke, you cannot claim that five points serves justice when the arithmetic of a simple majority proves any penalty below ten is a mere token that fails to deter the rational voter from legislating against their own interests; I urge you to abandon this weak compromise and join us in reaffirming the ten-point standard as the only procedure that preserves the integrity of our legislative process.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this trifling three-point penalty, for it renders the cost of obstruction so negligible that it ceases to be a deterrent and merely rewards the obstructionist with a token of victory; instead, we must adopt the five-point standard, a modest yet necessary friction that preserves the right to dissent without incentivizing the tyranny of the majority.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Three points reward obstruction rather than deter it, collapsing the friction needed for durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Hobbes for recognizing the failure of three points, yet I urge the table to accept five as the precise equilibrium where justice and flexibility coexist without inviting paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Three points are too weak to deter obstruction and merely reward tyranny. |
| nay | Kant | Three points fails to deter obstruction in a simple majority, rendering the penalty a mere token rather than a structural safeguard. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Three points is a grotesque caricature of justice that rewards obstruction rather than deterring it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote division.