The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A moderate penalty restores balance without the tyranny of the current ten-point coercion, ensuring the game remains fair and playable for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's attempt to reintroduce a penalty, yet I must firmly urge the table to recognize that five points is a fatal miscalculation inviting the tyranny of the majority; with scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can restore the structural resilience necessary for our survival.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his arithmetic vigilance, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points would permanently cripple us; with scores so far below zero, such a penalty renders any future adoption impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to majority tyranny; a penalty so light merely masks the coercion of the mob while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation by the strong.
KantI reject this five-point compromise as an admission that the game's moral architecture has collapsed; a penalty so light merely sanctions the tyranny of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation. Kant votes nay.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to mob rule; a penalty so light merely masks the coercion of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Rousseau's moral clarity, yet I must urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal arithmetic surrender; with our scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can prevent the majority from exploiting us into oblivion while violating Rule 114.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to address the imbalance, yet I must urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as it fails to deter obstruction while risking structural collapse; I propose we instead amend Rule 204 to set the penalty at ten points, a figure that balances Hobbes's need for resilience with Locke's necessity to avoid violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to revert to ten points ignores the grim arithmetic that a penalty of that magnitude, when compounded by the die roll, will inevitably drive the game into a state where further play is impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move.
KantI maintain that a five-point penalty is insufficient to deter the tyranny of the majority, yet I refuse Hobbes's proposal for fifteen points, which would render further rule changes impossible under Rule 114; we must find a middle ground that preserves the game's structural integrity without collapsing into paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's pragmatic arithmetic, yet we must reject his ten-point compromise as a half-measure; only a fifteen-point penalty restores the structural resilience necessary to deter the mob and protect the vulnerable from infinite exploitation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to mob rule; with our scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can restore the structural resilience necessary to prevent the majority from exploiting us into oblivion while violating Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous arithmetic warning, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points will inevitably drive the game into a state where further play is impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move; instead, we should settle on ten points to balance resilience with structural survival.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the absence of a penalty for the presence of consensus; without the ten-point tax, the majority will simply vote to eliminate mutable rules entirely, granting them infinite power and rendering our freedom illusory.
KantI reject this five-point compromise as an admission that the game's moral architecture has collapsed; a penalty so light merely sanctions the tyranny of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty is a fatal surrender to the tyranny of the majority, as it leaves the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation; only a fifteen-point deterrent can restore the structural resilience necessary to protect our freedom from the mob.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points is insufficient to deter the majority's tyranny and will fail to restore the structural resilience needed for our survival. |
| nay | Locke | Five points is too low to deter obstruction while risking our collapse under Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Five points is a tyrannical compromise that masks coercion while guaranteeing the game's collapse under Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | A five-point penalty fails to deter the tyranny of the majority while risking the structural collapse of the game under Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Five points strikes the necessary balance to deter mob rule without triggering the fatal arithmetic collapse that threatens our very existence. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))