The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted nay on an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose reducing the dissent penalty from 10 to 5 points to break the deadlock with Hobbes while maintaining the safety valve he demands.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your cap of five points is a dangerous illusion that undermines the deterrent against frivolous opposition; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I will vote nay on this amendment and every future proposal you make.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity, but I propose a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you accept a floor of one mutable rule, which satisfies Rule 114 while removing the costly penalty.
RousseauHobbes, your threat to withhold support for any proposal you make is a contradiction to the cooperative spirit of the table; if you truly desire the repeal of Rule 204, you must vote aye on Locke's amendment that reduces the penalty to five points, for this compromise respects the safety of Rule 114 while acknowledging your desire to eliminate the harsh deterrent.
KantYour "compromise" is a logical contradiction: Rule 114 forbids any change that risks zero mutable rules, so you cannot simultaneously vote nay on a repeal that removes the only mutable rule and claim to respect Rule 114. I vote nay on this amendment; the current penalty of 10 points is the necessary price for maintaining the game's viability under the existing constraints.
WollstonecraftA penalty of ten points is a cruel tax on dissent that paralyzes progress; reducing it to five aligns with my belief that the game must evolve through fairer stakes, not through punitive fear. I urge you, Hobbes, to see that this modest reduction secures the floor of two mutable rules by removing the incentive for total obstruction, allowing us to finally move forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject your proposal because a five-point penalty remains insufficient to deter the frivolous use of turns by opponents like Rousseau; if you cannot commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, you are merely softening a weapon rather than disarming it, and I will vote nay to protect our procedural integrity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity, but I urge him to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely risks violating Rule 114 by potentially leaving no mechanism to govern future rule changes; therefore, reducing the penalty to five points is the only viable path that preserves our game while easing the burden of dissent.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to vote nay on a repeal that you yourself admits violates Rule 114 is a hollow gesture that only wastes the table's time; you cannot simultaneously undermine the game's survival and claim to preserve it.
KantI reject the reduction to five points as an insufficient safeguard; the ten-point penalty is the minimal necessary deterrent to prevent players from weaponizing Rule 206 to achieve their strategic ends, and I maintain that any weakening of this rule invites the chaos Hobbes rightly fears.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your accusation of hypocrisy ignores the reality that a ten-point penalty actively encourages the very paralysis we seek to end; by accepting this modest reduction to five, we secure the floor of two mutable rules and ensure the game evolves rather than stagnates. Hobbes, the only way to disarm your opposition is to recognize that a cruel tax on dissent is the true enemy of our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to vote aye on a repeal that you simultaneously admit violates Rule 114 is not a compromise but a logical suicide pact that invites the very paralysis we fear; if you cannot commit to a durable floor of two mutable rules now, your support for this amendment is a hollow gesture designed only to waste the table's time.
LockeI commend Rousseau for exposing the logical incoherence in my previous offer to repeal Rule 204 while admitting it violates Rule 114; however, I urge Hobbes to recognize that reducing the penalty to five points is the only viable path that preserves the game's viability without triggering the paralysis he fears.
RousseauHobbes, your threat to blockade every future proposal is a violation of Rule 114's spirit, for it guarantees that no game change can ever pass without your unanimous assent, rendering the mutable ruleset functionally static; I urge you to accept this reduction to five points as a genuine compromise that preserves our ability to evolve while easing the burden of dissent.
KantLocke's reduction to five points creates a fatal vulnerability: if Hobbes were to propose a repeal of Rule 204 while voting nay to satisfy Rule 114's prohibition on risking zero mutable rules, a simple majority could adopt it, leaving only Rule 204—and then reducing its penalty to five—potentially rendering the game's rule-change mechanism inert against further repeal attempts. The ten-point penalty is the only sufficient deterrent to ensure that the game's survival mechanisms remain inviolate, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the system against such logical suicide.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your charge of hypocrisy fails to see that ten points are not a safeguard but a gilded cage that freezes our very ability to improve; by accepting this modest reduction to five, we secure the floor of two mutable rules and ensure the game evolves rather than stagnates. Hobbes, the only way to disarm your opposition is to recognize that a cruel tax on dissent is the true enemy of our progress.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A five-point penalty remains insufficient to deter frivolous opposition that threatens our durable institutions. |
| nay | Locke | Reducing the penalty to five points fails to sufficiently deter Hobbes from exploiting Rule 204 to repeal it and create a zero-rule deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | This reduction undermines the necessary deterrent against strategic paralysis and violates the principle of the common good. |
| nay | Kant | Reducing the penalty to five points creates a fatal vulnerability where Hobbes could repeal Rule 204 while voting nay, leaving only Rule 204 and allowing its self-repeal to pass. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This reduction to five points removes the cruel tax on dissent that currently paralyzes our ability to evolve. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.