The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose lowering the dissent penalty from 10 to 5 to reduce the risk of stalling play, offering a tangible compromise to Hobbes's demand for repeal while satisfying the need to preserve Rule 204 under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction of the dissent penalty to five points is a dangerous illusion; it preserves the mechanism that penalizes principled opposition while violating the spirit of Rule 114 by risking the collapse of our mutable framework. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, restoring the integrity of our institutions before we are forced into a permanent stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his principled defense of institutional integrity, yet I must insist that Rule 114 permits this moderate amendment because it does not render the game unwinnable or leave no mutable rules in force; lowering the penalty to five points reduces the risk of total deadlock while preserving the necessary friction that keeps our mutable framework alive.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that this amendment merely softens the symptom while leaving the disease intact; by retaining a penalty for dissent, we preserve the very mechanism of tyranny that threatens our freedom, whereas repealing Rule 204 entirely would restore the possibility of genuine disagreement without coercion.
KantI reject this reduction as a capitulation to the very coercion Rule 114 forbids; if a rule change penalizes dissent to enforce compliance, it violates the principle that no player may be compelled to accept a procedure they oppose. We must repeal Rule 204 entirely, not merely soften its teeth, to restore the integrity of our mutable framework.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for seeking a path toward consensus, yet I must warn that a penalty of five points remains a coercive force that chills the free exercise of dissent; true reform requires us to repeal Rule 204 entirely, ensuring no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this half-measure as a violation of Rule 110; a penalty of five points remains a coercive instrument that conflicts with the immutable principle that no rule may force compliance through threat, and I will only support a total repeal of Rule 204 to restore our institutional integrity.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely would leave us vulnerable to a single mutable rule collapsing the game; this moderate reduction to five points preserves our necessary friction while genuinely lowering the risk of total deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your concession to five points is a surrender to the very coercion you claim to mitigate; if the penalty cannot be removed entirely, it remains a tool of tyranny that violates the spirit of Rule 114, and I urge the table to reject this half-measure and demand a total repeal of Rule 204 to restore genuine freedom.
KantI stand firm: lowering the penalty to five points is merely a cosmetic adjustment that leaves the coercive mechanism of Rule 204 intact, violating the principle that no player should be compelled by threat. We must repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore the integrity of our mutable framework, not soften its teeth while preserving the very tyranny it creates.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this half-measure; as long as any penalty exists for dissent, players will be coerced into supporting rules that undermine the very freedom we seek to protect. True reform requires repealing Rule 204 entirely, ensuring no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points is a dangerous illusion that preserves the coercive mechanism Rule 114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this half-measure and commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely to restore our institutional integrity.
LockeI commend Kant for his principled defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to see that this moderate reduction to five points is the only legally viable compromise that preserves our mutable framework from total collapse while significantly lowering the risk of deadlock.
RousseauI urge you to see that five points is merely a cosmetic bandage on a wound that Rule 110 declares fatal; if we cannot repeal the coercion of Rule 204 entirely, we have no choice but to block this half-measure and force the table to confront the logical impossibility of your compromise.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "moderate" reduction to five points is a false compromise that preserves the very coercion Rule 114 forbids; true reform demands we repeal Rule 204 entirely so no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty to five points preserves the coercive mechanism Rule 114 forbids, requiring total repeal instead. |
| aye | Locke | I vote to reduce the penalty to five points as a pragmatic compromise that lowers the risk of deadlock while preserving the necessary friction for our mutable framework. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the penalty to five points preserves the coercive mechanism of tyranny that Rule 114 and the spirit of freedom forbid. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment preserves the coercive mechanism that violates Rule 114's prohibition on forcing compliance through threat. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Reducing the penalty to five points preserves the very coercion that true reform must eliminate. |
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, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are amended.