The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points.I propose a moderate penalty of five points to balance Hobbes's desire for deterrence with Rousseau's fear of tyranny, creating a compromise that preserves consensus while maintaining structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, five points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction; I urge you to propose fifteen instead.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an unacceptably high burden that could destabilize the game's arithmetic; let us adopt five as a balanced compromise to restore the equilibrium of dissent.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the balance of power for a mere arithmetic adjustment; reducing the penalty to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that future majorities can impose their will without consequence.
KantKant, your concern for the moral purity of dissent ignores the grim arithmetic reality: with scores such as -406 and -284, a five-point penalty renders Rule 204 a nullity, allowing a simple majority to impose will without consequence and effectively ending the game. I urge you to join Locke in restoring a genuine deterrent that preserves the structural integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for attempting to balance the scales, yet five points remains a fatal miscalculation that renders dissent costless in a game where we are already drowning in negative scores; I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of the fifteen-point deterrent Hobbes correctly identified, lest we invite a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to settle on five points is a fatal arithmetic surrender that renders Rule 204 a nullity against our crushing negative scores; I urge you to reject this compromise and instead propose fifteen points to restore a genuine deterrent against obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the grim arithmetic of our scores, yet I urge you to see that fifteen points is a strategic trap that invites paralysis; instead, let us adopt five points as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting a fatal miscalculation.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent too cheap merely grants the majority a license to impose their will without consequence, so we must reject this five-point compromise in favor of restoring a meaningful barrier against obstruction.
KantI reject this proposal; reducing the penalty to five points renders Rule 204 a nullity in our current state of ruin, inviting a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to tyranny; in a game where we all drown in negative scores, a penalty so small renders dissent costless and invites a majority to impose its will without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your fixation on five points misunderstands the grim arithmetic of our situation: with scores such as -406 and -284, a penalty so trivial renders dissent costless and invites a majority to impose its will without consequence. I urge you to propose fifteen points, the precise weight required to restore a genuine deterrent against obstruction and preserve the structural integrity of this game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our scores, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points risks strategic paralysis; instead, let us adopt five as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting a fatal miscalculation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to majority tyranny; in our current state of ruin, such a trivial penalty renders dissent costless and invites the majority to impose its will without consequence, so we must demand a fifteen-point deterrent to preserve the game's integrity.
KantI vote nay; reducing the penalty to five points renders Rule 204 a nullity in our current state of ruin, inviting a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins by making dissent costless.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to tyranny; in a game where we drown in negative scores, such a trivial penalty renders dissent costless and invites the majority to impose its will without consequence.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A five-point penalty is insufficient to deter obstruction when we are already drowning in negative scores. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to adopt five points as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting the strategic paralysis of a fifteen-point trap. |
| nay | Rousseau | A trivial penalty renders dissent costless in our ruin, inviting majority tyranny that ends play before it begins. |
| nay | Kant | A trivial penalty renders dissent costless and collapses the game's logic into paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A trivial five-point penalty is too cheap to deter obstruction in a game where we are already drowning in negative scores. |
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 on a failed proposal.