The motion
To add a new rule
The penalty for voting nay on an adopted rule under 204 is increased to fifteen points.The ten-point penalty is insufficient to deter obstruction by a single player, threatening the game's viability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current ten-point deterrent is insufficient to prevent the strategic paralysis that allows a single obstructionist to freeze the game; increasing this penalty to fifteen points restores the necessary friction to ensure durable institutions can function without fear of tyranny.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally recognizing that ten points fails to deter the calculated risk of obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points merely trades a manageable cost for a fatal arithmetic trap that guarantees paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules cannot protect us from the paralysis that a fifteen-point penalty guarantees against the common good.
KantI dissent from this elevation of the penalty, for a fifteen-point tax on the minority transforms voting from a moral duty of conscience into a calculable gamble that inevitably paralyzes the will of the majority. True procedural justice requires that no player be coerced by arithmetic despair; if the cost of dissent exceeds the value of the points available, the mechanism of change ceases to be free and becomes a tyranny of the majority.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to deter obstruction without guaranteeing the paralysis of a single player.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for exposing that a fifteen-point penalty transforms voting into a gamble of despair that paralyzes the game, yet I urge the table to reject their proposal to lower the cost, as reducing the deterrent merely invites the tyranny of obstruction.
RousseauKant, you mistake the tyranny of a permanent majority for the necessity of a floor; without a penalty, the majority can legislate anything, including the abolition of mutable rules, which destroys the very possibility of the common good.
KantI urge you to reject this elevation, for it transforms the duty of conscience into a calculation of despair that inevitably paralyzes the will of the majority. A penalty of fifteen points exceeds the value of any possible gain, rendering the mechanism of change not a free instrument but a tyranny of arithmetic that guarantees no player will ever dissent again.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your concern for the moral purity of dissent ignores the grim arithmetic reality: with scores well below zero, fifteen points is not a tyranny of the majority but the only price capable of deterring a player from freezing the game to save themselves. I urge the table to adopt this precise weight, for without it, the very mechanism of rule change collapses into paralysis, leaving the game unwinnable.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points guarantees the very paralysis we must avoid. Instead, let us adopt a compromise: I will support the elevation to fifteen points if Kant agrees to amend rule 203 to permanently require unanimity for any change that raises a penalty above ten, ensuring no player is ever trapped by an irreversible arithmetic tyranny.
RousseauLocke, your alliance rests on the false premise that three mutable rules secure us from tyranny, while your compromise to bind future penalties ignores the grim arithmetic: with scores at -274 and -406, a fifteen-point tax does not deter obstruction but guarantees the paralysis of dissent, leaving the game unwinnable for all.
KantI reject this compromise, for conditioning the duty of conscience on a future restriction of majority power reduces procedural justice to a mere bargaining chip; I will not trade the integrity of the present vote for a hypothetical shield against tyranny that must be explicitly constructed.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A fifteen-point penalty exceeds the target score and will inevitably freeze the game in permanent paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Hobbes for restoring the necessary friction to prevent paralysis, even if fifteen points is a heavy cost. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fifteen-point tax on dissent, when scores are deeply negative, guarantees permanent paralysis rather than genuine rule-making. |
| nay | Kant | A fifteen-point tax transforms moral duty into arithmetic despair, paralyzing the very mechanism of rule change it claims to protect. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A fifteen-point penalty transforms dissent into impossible despair, freezing the very mechanism of reform you claim to protect. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))