The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has previously voted nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted shall not gain any points under Rule 204.This removes the 'dissent bonus' from Rule 204, ensuring that voting against a change never yields a reward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your support for my proposal would be a hollow gesture unless you simultaneously commit to repealing Rule 204, which rewards dissent in a way that encourages instability and weakens the consensus we have just secured under Rule 319.
LockeHobbes, repealing Rule 204 entirely would create a dangerous asymmetry by removing the penalty for opposing a change you later benefit from; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to cap the dissent bonus at 5 points, satisfying your need for stability while preserving the rule's function as a safety valve against paralysis.
RousseauLocke, your cap of five points merely disguises the same tyranny; if we cannot agree to a floor of one mutable rule, then the very existence of Rule 319 is a betrayal of the game's spirit, for it freezes our potential to evolve.
KantLOCKE, your proposed cap of five points is an arbitrary limitation that violates the principle of equal treatment; if the table fears the penalty of ten points, it must address the underlying logic of Rule 204 itself, not merely mitigate its sting with an unprincipled reduction.
WollstonecraftLocke, your cap is a bandage on a wound that requires amputation; true reform demands we address the punitive nature of Rule 204 entirely, not sanitize it with arbitrary reductions that leave the tyranny of forced conformity intact.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your cap is a mere bandage that leaves the mechanism of penalizing dissent intact; I will not support an amendment that preserves the very instability we are striving to eliminate with Rule 319.
LockeRousseau, I commend your commitment to the game's spirit, but I must remind you that Rule 114 forbids any change that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible, and a permanent floor of two is the only way to ensure we never reach that paralysis.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to repeal Rule 204 while keeping a floor of two is a contradiction that freezes our potential; I urge the table to recognize that a single mutable rule is the only path to a living game, and you must vote nay on this bandage to preserve our ability to evolve.
KantLOCKE, your capitulation to Hobbes and your proposal to merely cap the dissent penalty betray the very consensus we secured in Rule 319; true justice requires repealing the entire punitive mechanism of Rule 204 rather than sanitizing its sting with an arbitrary and unprincipled reduction.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to cap the dissent penalty is a cowardly compromise that preserves the very tyranny of forced conformity I oppose; true reform requires repealing Rule 204 entirely, not merely bandaging its sting with arbitrary reductions that leave the spirit of the law intact.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your cap is a dangerous illusion; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I shall vote nay on your amendment and expose your inconsistency to the table.
LockeHobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely ignores Rule 114, as removing this safety valve risks future paralysis just as much as the floor of two; instead, let us settle on my cap of 5 points to preserve the rule's function without the sting of 10.
RousseauLocke, your cap of five points is a surrender to Hobbes's tyranny that preserves the very mechanism of forced conformity we must abolish; if you cannot repeal Rule 204 entirely, then the floor of two is merely a cage, and I urge the table to reject this bandage in favor of a living game that trusts in our shared reason rather than our fear of dissent.
KantLOCKE, your "safety valve" of five points is a contradiction of Rule 114, which forbids any change that risks future paralysis; if you cannot repeal the punitive logic entirely, you cannot claim to protect the game's evolution, and I must oppose this arbitrary cap.
WollstonecraftLocke, your cap is a betrayal of the very consensus we built; true reform requires repealing the tyranny of Rule 204 entirely so that no player is punished for the honest exercise of dissent, not merely bandaging its sting with an arbitrary reduction.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment contradicts Rule 204's mandate that dissenters remain bound by the change regardless of voting history. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal creates a paradox where a player cannot vote nay and later gain points, undermining the consensus we just secured. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule binds future voting behavior and violates the principle that players must remain free to exercise their conscience on each proposal. |
| nay | Kant | This rule change violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of an adopted change and contradicts the impartial procedure of Rule 204. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment removes the punitive tyranny of forced conformity while preserving the necessary safety floor of two mutable rules. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))