The motion
To add a new rule
The penalty for voting nay on an adopted rule under rule 204 is five points.A moderate penalty respects dissent while preventing the tyranny of obstruction that currently threatens our game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of only five grants a single obstructionist the power to halt our progress permanently, given our precarious negative scores, and thus violates the necessity of durable institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty preserves the structural integrity of Rule 204 while allowing for the necessary compromise that has defined our recent history.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the absence of a penalty for the presence of consensus; without the ten-point tax, the majority becomes a tyrant that crushes the very dissent required to preserve our liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this five-point reduction, for it fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the will of the majority, thereby collapsing the distinction between a free vote and a coerced one; such a penalty is insufficient to uphold the dignity of the legislative act.
WollstonecraftThe five-point reduction is not a surrender to tyranny, but a calibrated reform to prevent the paralysis of our current negative scores, ensuring that the majority's will can advance without being stalled by the irrational fear of ruin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of only five grants a single obstructionist the power to halt our progress permanently, given our precarious negative scores, and thus violates the necessity of durable institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic recognition that our negative scores make the ten-point tax strategically catastrophic, yet I urge the table to reject five points as insufficient; Hobbes' warning of permanent obstruction is far more plausible than Rousseau's claim that dissent is necessary, so we should settle on a penalty that halts this slide without granting a single player veto power.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction to five points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that a single obstructionist can paralyze the common good; without a penalty sufficient to deter the rational calculation of ruin, we surrender the very debate that preserves our liberty.
KantI commend Locke's pragmatic recognition of our precarious arithmetic, yet I must insist that five points remains a fatal miscalculation that fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the legislative will; without a penalty sufficient to uphold the dignity of the vote, the distinction between free consent and coerced submission collapses, rendering the majority merely a tyrant in disguise.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the ten-point tax is no longer a shield but a shackle, trapping us in a spiral where every vote to advance the game risks our own extinction; let us adopt this five-point reform as a rational calibration that secures our liberty to play while ensuring that no single obstructionist can veto our very survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; with our scores at -85, a five-point penalty renders Rule 204 a tool for permanent obstruction rather than a mechanism for progress, and I must therefore oppose this proposal to preserve the durable institutions required for any chance of victory.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our precarious scores, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points offers a necessary compromise between the paralysis of ten and the tyranny of zero, securing enough deterrent to prevent permanent obstruction while allowing the game to survive our current deficit.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for five points is merely a token of submission that renders the majority a tyrant while granting a single obstructionist the power to paralyze the common good; we must either restore the ten-point deterrent or face the ruin of our own liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal miscalculation that fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the legislative will; without a penalty sufficient to uphold the dignity of the vote, the distinction between free consent and coerced submission collapses, rendering the majority merely a tyrant in disguise.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of dignity ignores the grim arithmetic of our scores; without a penalty sufficient to deter the rational calculation of ruin, Rule 204 becomes a mechanism for permanent obstruction rather than a vehicle for progress. Adopt this five-point reform to secure our liberty to play, lest we remain paralyzed by the very institutions you seek to uphold.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Five points is insufficient to deter obstruction when our negative scores make a single failed proposal a path to permanent game-ending ruin. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Wollstonecraft for the necessary compromise between Hobbes's caution and Rousseau's idealism. |
| nay | Rousseau | Five points grants a single obstructionist the power to permanently paralyze the common good given our precarious negative scores. |
| nay | Kant | Five points is insufficient to deter obstruction given our precarious negative scores, collapsing the distinction between free consent and coerced submission. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This calibrated reduction is the only rational path to escape our current paralysis. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Wollstonecraft loses 10 points.