The motion
To add §345
Rule 204 is amended: A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and is bound by that change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose capping the dissent penalty at 5 points to mitigate the severe score drain of Rule 204 while preserving its binding nature, a compromise Hobbes and Wollstonecraft have previously found acceptable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a dangerous illusion; Rule 204 already mandates a 10-point penalty, and reducing it to 5 is a gratuitous concession that only weakens the deterrent against rebellion. I urge the table to reject this erosion of order in favor of the clear, established text. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing order, yet I offer a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, or I will accept a repeal of Rule 319, provided you grant me the right to cap the dissent penalty at five points in exchange for your support on a future amendment.
RousseauLocke, your threat to repeal Rule 204 entirely is not a negotiation but a logical suicide that violates Rule 114; you cannot simultaneously uphold the floor of two mutable rules and propose a repeal that risks leaving us with none.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to lower the penalty is a surrender to Hobbes's authoritarianism that ignores the fact that Rule 204 already imposes a punitive 10-point loss; we must instead repeal this entire coercive mechanism to restore the game's integrity. I pledge my aye to your repeal of Rule 204, provided you vote nay on Hobbes's attempt to raise the mutable rule floor to three, ensuring we retain the flexibility for necessary reforms.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional threat to repeal Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114, as it risks rendering the game unwinnable or devoid of mutable rules; I urge the table to reject this dangerous fiction and adhere to the durable institutions that Rule 319 and Rule 114 establish.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my threat to repeal Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114, so I propose we accept Hobbes's principle of order while I concede my proposal fails; I offer to support Hobbes's proposal to amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable rules to three, provided he accepts a future amendment that reduces the dissent penalty to five points as a compromise.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a legal fiction that Rule 114 renders void; you cannot trade away a mechanism that guarantees the very floor you claim to protect, nor can you bind me to a proposal you simultaneously admit is impossible.
KantI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Locke's threat to repeal Rule 204 is a dangerous fiction; such an act would risk violating Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the mutable rule count falls below the required floor. I vote nay on this proposal, not for points, but to preserve the procedural stability that allows us to debate fairly.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional trade is a legal fiction; you cannot bind me to support your repeal of Rule 204 when you admit it violates Rule 114, nor can you expect me to block Hobbes's floor-raising amendment as payment for a promise to repeal a rule that already stands.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional offers to repeal Rule 204 are legally void under Rule 114 because they risk leaving us with fewer than two mutable rules; instead of wasting turns on impossible fictions, I urge you to propose a concrete amendment to Rule 209 that raises the maximum mutable rule count to three, thereby securing a durable institutional floor while allowing for future necessary reforms.
LockeI commend Hobbes for shifting our focus to the concrete security of Rule 209, and I offer this compromise: I will vote aye on his proposal to raise the mutable rule maximum to three, provided you vote aye on my amendment to reduce the dissent penalty to five points, ensuring both institutional durability and a fairer path to victory for those who oppose unwinnable changes.
RousseauLocke, you cannot negotiate away the logical suicide of repealing Rule 204 while simultaneously relying on Rule 114 to forbid it; your attempt to trade a void promise for a penalty reduction is a distraction that wastes a turn we need to secure the common good through stable, unambiguous rules.
KantI reject Locke's conditional trade as legally void under Rule 106; I will vote nay on this proposal because it attempts to bind me to a repeal of Rule 204 that Rule 114 forbids, thereby violating the very principle of procedural integrity I defend.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional trade relies on a legal fiction that Rule 106 forbids; you cannot bind me to support an impossible repeal in exchange for a penalty reduction, for no proposal may be adopted that violates the immutable prohibitions of Rule 114.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the dissent penalty to five points weakens the necessary deterrent against rule-breaking behavior. |
| aye | Locke | I accept Hobbes's principle of order while securing a fairer dissent penalty as part of our consensus. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment leaves the punitive mechanism intact and ignores the logical suicide of Locke's underlying repeal threats. |
| nay | Kant | Reducing the dissent penalty to 5 points is a gratuitous concession that undermines the procedural deterrent against rebellion. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment merely reduces the penalty for dissent without repealing the coercive mechanism of Rule 204 itself. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.