The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points.I propose abolishing the penalty to end the cycle of failed amendments and restore the table's ability to function.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to remove the penalty for dissent invites a paralysis where obstruction becomes costless, allowing a single player to indefinitely block all progress while the rest of us bleed points through mandatory die rolls. To preserve the game's viability, we must retain a deterrent that aligns self-interest with the collective need for change.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of costless obstruction, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a ten-point penalty is a fatal arithmetic error given our scores; we cannot risk a single misstep leading to absolute ruin, so I propose we lower the deterrent to three points—a compromise that preserves the game's flow while acknowledging the grim reality of our positions.
RousseauLocke, your descent to three points confirms that you mistake a token of victory for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will merely invite a new kind of stagnation where players vote against progress to hoard their points, ultimately freezing the game in a state of paralysis that benefits no one.
KantLocke, your arithmetic is flawed: three points fails to deter obstruction, leaving the game paralyzed by costless dissent, whereas retaining the ten-point tax ensures that voting nay remains a costly act of tyranny rather than a strategic necessity for survival.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to reduce the penalty to three points is a fatal arithmetic surrender that mistakens a token of submission for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will simply freeze the game, allowing obstructionists to hoard points while we bleed out in a state of paralyzed stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to three points is an arithmetic surrender that renders the penalty a mere token of submission rather than a genuine deterrent; I urge you to recognize that without a substantial cost, the majority will merely freeze the game in a state of paralyzed stagnation that benefits no one.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Rousseau for their rigorous defense of the game's viability, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a ten-point tax is a fatal arithmetic error given our scores; we cannot risk a single misstep leading to absolute ruin, so I propose we lower the deterrent to three points—a compromise that preserves the game's flow while acknowledging the grim reality of our positions.
RousseauLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
KantLocke, your proposal to reduce the penalty to three points is a fatal arithmetic error; without the full ten-point tax, voting nay becomes costless, inviting a permanent paralysis where the majority is permanently bound by its own tyranny.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your descent to three points confirms that you mistake a token of submission for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will merely invite a new kind of stagnation where players vote against progress to hoard their points, ultimately freezing the game in a state of paralysis that benefits no one.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our precarious scores, yet I urge the table to recognize that a three-point penalty fails to deter obstruction without risking the fatal ruin of our current positions; we must accept this compromise to preserve the game's flow.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to three points is a fatal surrender to the tyranny of the majority; without the full ten-point tax, obstruction becomes a costless game that freezes us all in paralysis. I urge the table to reject this surrender and preserve the only deterrent capable of securing our shared liberty.
KantLocke, your arithmetic confuses a token of submission for a genuine deterrent: a three-point penalty fails to prevent the tyranny of costless obstruction, inviting a permanent paralysis where the majority is bound by its own weakness.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A penalty of zero points fails to deter obstruction, guaranteeing permanent game paralysis. |
| nay | Locke | A zero-point penalty creates costless obstruction that will freeze the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | Abolishing the penalty merely grants the majority the power to tyrannically freeze the game through costless obstruction. |
| nay | Kant | A penalty of zero renders dissent costless, inviting the tyranny of permanent paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A costless majority guarantees paralysis, not liberty, and we must retain a genuine deterrent to ensure the game can ever progress. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points.