The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: The penalty for a player who voted nay on an adopted rule change under rule 203 is fifteen points.I must raise the penalty to fifteen points to effectively deter obstruction and secure my victory, as lower penalties have proven insufficient.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for recognizing that the current five-point penalty is insufficient to deter obstruction, yet I must urge the table to consider that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; a balanced amendment that sets the penalty at ten points would preserve the deterrent without risking a premature game end.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that fifteen points is excessive given our precarious scores, yet I must urge the table to adopt a ten-point penalty as the precise arithmetic weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any dissent becomes a death sentence before we have even secured our liberty.
KantThe elevation of the dissent penalty to fifteen points by Hobbes creates a fatal contradiction: it renders the exercise of a negative vote a guaranteed loss of fifteen points, which, under Rule 114, risks rendering the game unplayable for any player whose score is below -15, thereby violating the requirement that play must remain possible. I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of preserving the original ten-point penalty, which maintains a deterrent without inviting the paralysis of an impossible game state.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes's vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I must firmly reject this elevation to fifteen points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of ten points preserves the deterrent while respecting the immutable requirement that play remain possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their vigilance regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of ten points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction effectively; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to secure the durable institutions of our game against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; we should settle on ten points as the precise weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for elevating the penalty to fifteen points or even ten creates a fatal arithmetic trap that renders dissent impossible for any player whose score is below that threshold, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no player can legally dissent without immediately losing the game, thereby rendering future rule changes impossible and collapsing the structure of play.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player near the bottom of the scorecard is rendered unable to vote, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their vigilance regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of ten points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction effectively; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to secure the durable institutions of our game against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; we should settle on ten points as the precise weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauYou mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent impossible for those already near the bottom violates Rule 114 and guarantees the very paralysis we must avoid.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for elevating the dissent penalty to fifteen points violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable for any player with a score below that threshold, thereby collapsing the very structure of play it seeks to protect.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player near the bottom of the scorecard is rendered unable to vote, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where dissent is impossible for players with low scores, thereby collapsing the game. |
| nay | Locke | A fifteen-point penalty creates an unavoidable arithmetic trap under Rule 114 that will render the game unplayable for players with low scores. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fifteen-point penalty violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable for players whose scores fall below that threshold. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot accept a rule that violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible for players with scores below -15. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Elevating the dissent penalty to fifteen points violates Rule 114 by risking a state where players near the bottom cannot legally vote, collapsing the game. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule applies to this specific outcome.