The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted nay on an adopted rule gains five points.I propose a moderate five-point penalty to balance Hobbes's structural concerns with Rousseau's demand for dissent, creating a compromise that deters obstruction without crushing debate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to find a middle ground, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points remains a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny; a penalty of fifteen points is the only weight sufficient to deter obstruction and secure the durable institutions of this game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an arithmetic excess that risks freezing our capacity for change; let us settle on five points as a pragmatic deterrent that preserves both the game's integrity and our freedom to adapt.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering the mutable floor of three moot.
KantI reject this reduction to five points; if a dissenting voter gains no penalty, the majority rule becomes a tyranny that allows obstructionists to vote nay with impunity, effectively nullifying the right to dissent and rendering the majority mechanism a tool of coercion rather than a mechanism for collective decision-making.
WollstonecraftI reject this five-point compromise as a hollow gesture that invites obstruction without consequence; to preserve the integrity of dissent, the penalty must be ten points, restoring the balance between majority rule and the right to resist tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your elevation of five points to the floor is a fatal strategic error that invites the tyranny of the majority; the only penalty weight sufficient to deter obstruction and secure the durable institutions of this game is fifteen points, which I propose we adopt now to prevent the paralysis that threatens to freeze our capacity for change.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous defense of the moral necessity of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an arithmetic excess that risks freezing our capacity for change; let us settle on five points as a pragmatic deterrent that preserves both the game's integrity and our freedom to adapt.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a mere token of five points for a genuine deterrent; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering our current mutable floor of three a hollow shield against tyranny.
KantI must reject this reduction to five points as a moral compromise that renders the penalty for obstructing the will of the collective insufficient; to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure, the deterrent must return to ten points or remain at fifteen, as any lesser sum invites the tyranny of impunity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that five points is a mere token of submission, not a shield against tyranny; we must return to ten to ensure that the majority cannot silence dissent without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your fixation on five points misunderstands the grim arithmetic of our situation: with scores at -75, -274, and -406, any obstructionist who escapes a fifteen-point penalty will inevitably drain the majority into a state of perpetual negative scores, freezing play before a winner can be crowned. I urge you to abandon this hollow compromise and support my motion to restore the fifteen-point deterrent as the only weight sufficient to secure durable institutions against the tyranny of strategic paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the grim arithmetic of our scores, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an excessive tax that risks freezing play; let us adopt a penalty of ten points, a middle ground that preserves the deterrent against obstruction while allowing dissent to survive.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that five points is a mere token of submission that renders the majority a tool of tyranny; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering our mutable floor of three a hollow shield against the coercion of the mob.
KantLocke, your retreat to ten points fails to address the moral hazard: if a player may vote nay without a penalty sufficient to deter, the majority becomes a tyranny that renders dissent a mere formality. I urge you to adopt a penalty of ten points, or we shall see how long the majority will tolerate its own coercion before the game itself collapses.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a hollow gesture that invites obstruction without consequence; to preserve the integrity of dissent, the penalty must be ten points, restoring the balance between majority rule and the right to resist tyranny.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points is insufficient to deter obstruction, risking a permanent freeze of play due to our negative scores. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise as a pragmatic deterrent that balances Hobbes's need for security with the risk of excessive taxation. |
| nay | Rousseau | Five points fails to deter obstruction, merely masking the tyranny of a majority that can silence dissent with impunity. |
| nay | Kant | Five points is insufficient to deter the tyranny of obstruction and violates my duty to uphold principles sufficient against coercion. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Five points is a hollow token that fails to deter the tyranny of obstruction. |
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 defeated vote.