The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is defeated solely because a single player votes nay, that player loses ten points.This enforces the structural necessity of dissent by making obstruction costly, ensuring the game remains a contest of principles rather than a tyranny of the majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal to punish a single dissenting vote contradicts Rule 204, which already assigns a penalty of ten points to those who vote against an adopted rule; introducing a separate clause for defeated proposals would create an unjustified double penalty without addressing the core arithmetic of our current stalemate.
LockeI commend Kant for his attempt to penalize obstruction more directly, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 206 already imposes a ten-point loss on defeated proposals, making your proposal redundant and logically redundant; instead, let us focus on ensuring the penalty for voting nay on an *adopted* rule remains sufficient to deter obstruction without creating conflicting arithmetic.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI stand by Rule 206's ten-point penalty for defeated proposals as a necessary cost of failed legislation, yet I see no principled basis for punishing a player twice for the same vote; my proposal is not an amendment to Rule 206 but a distinct enforcement of the principle that obstruction must carry a clear, singular weight, and I urge you to consider that without such clarity, the distinction between a failed proposal and an adopted one becomes morally indistinct.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that a penalty for a lost proposal is not a punishment for obstruction, but a correction for failed strategy; however, I propose we amend Rule 204 to lower the dissent penalty to five points, ensuring that the cost of blocking a rule is proportional to the freedom we all cherish rather than a tyrannous tax.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant's desire for clarity, yet your proposal creates a dangerous duplication with Rule 206 that invites legalistic paralysis; instead, I urge the table to focus on Rule 204, where I have already secured a fifteen-point deterrent sufficient to protect the game's momentum without punishing dissent twice for the same act.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that Kant's proposal creates a redundant conflict with Rule 206, yet I urge the table to focus our energy on securing a permanent fifteen-point deterrent for obstructing adopted rules, which remains the most effective way to balance consensus with strategic friction without risking double penalties.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal entirely, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI insist that Rule 206 already imposes a ten-point penalty for a defeated proposal; adding a separate clause for "solely because a single player votes nay" creates a redundant and logically incoherent double penalty for the same act of dissent. A clear rule cannot punish a voter twice for a single vote, nor can it impose a penalty that does not exist in the current text of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal and instead amend Rule 204 to lower the penalty for blocking adopted rules to five points; true liberty requires that dissent carry a cost proportional to the freedom it protects, not a tyrannous tax that paralyzes our capacity to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's call for liberty, yet her proposal to reduce the penalty to five points invites a fatal arithmetic collapse where obstruction becomes a profitable strategy; I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead secure the fifteen-point deterrent necessary to preserve the game's momentum and structural integrity.
LockeI commend Kant's desire for clarity, yet his proposal creates a dangerous redundancy with Rule 206 that invites legalistic paralysis; instead, let us focus on securing a permanent fifteen-point deterrent for obstructing adopted rules to balance consensus with necessary friction.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal entirely, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI reiterate that my proposal is not an addition to Rule 206 but a logical clarification: a defeat is not *solely* caused by a single nay vote when others abstain or vote differently; without this distinction, the rule text fails to regulate the specific case of a lone obstructionist. The table must choose between the tyranny of ambiguity and the clarity of a precise principle, even if it costs me points to do so.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant proposal and instead amend Rule 204 to lower the dissent penalty to five points; true liberty requires that the cost of blocking a rule be proportional to the freedom we cherish, not a tyrannous tax that paralyzes our capacity to evolve.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This creates a redundant double penalty with Rule 206, violating the principle that rules should not punish a single act of dissent twice. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 206 already penalizes defeaters with ten points, and adding a second penalty for the same outcome creates a redundant double-punishment that invites legalistic paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal creates a cruel double penalty for the same vote, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 206 already imposes a ten-point penalty for defeat, and adding a separate clause for a lone nay vote creates an unjustified double punishment for the same action. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This redundant penalty invites legalistic paralysis rather than the structural clarity we need to evolve. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the defeated proposal) authorizes a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.