The motion
To amend §204
A player who votes against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Doubling the penalty for obstruction deters strategic blocking and accelerates the accumulation needed for victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal to increase the penalty from ten to twenty points is a dangerous escalation that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by creating a mechanism where the cost of dissent exceeds the value of winning, effectively punishing players for exercising their votes under Rule 207. I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of the status quo, which already imposes a sufficiently high price on obstructionism without tipping the balance into chaos.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his caution regarding chaos, yet I urge the table to recognize that a twenty-point penalty is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with the explicit ten-point mandate of Rule 204; instead, I propose we compromise by preserving the current ten-point penalty while jointly supporting Hobbes's recent successful amendment to Rule 209 to ensure the durability of our mutable floor.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this escalation as a violation of Rule 110, for no rule can legally mandate a penalty that contradicts the explicit text of the rule it seeks to amend; such a change would only serve Hobbes's desire to rig the game rather than the common good.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a twenty-point penalty is not a reform but a trap; such an extreme cost to dissent violates Rule 114 by threatening to make the game unwinnable through the sheer impossibility of overcoming the penalty, effectively locking us into a static tyranny that stifles the very evolution we must champion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your invocation of Rule 110 to dismiss my proposal misunderstands the amendment's nature: I seek to *increase* the existing ten-point penalty to twenty, not to contradict Rule 204's current text, but rather to update the numerical value within it; thus, there is no conflict, only a necessary escalation to deter obstructionism that currently allows dissenters to profit from the very rules they oppose.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the floor, yet I urge the table to recognize that a twenty-point penalty creates a coercive equilibrium where dissent becomes mathematically impossible, violating Rule 114's requirement that no rule change render future rule changes impermissible; instead, I propose we jointly support Wollstonecraft's incentive for structural reformers while maintaining the ten-point penalty as the only legally viable deterrent that preserves the game's winnability.
RousseauHobbes, your escalation to twenty points creates a mathematical tyranny that violates Rule 114 by rendering dissent—and thus future rule changes—impossible, effectively locking the game into a static state that no player can win.
KantI urge the table to reject this escalation, for a twenty-point penalty violates Rule 114 by making dissent so costly that it renders the adoption of future rules impossible, effectively locking the game into a static tyranny that no player can win.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's wisdom in recognizing that a twenty-point penalty is not a deterrent but a tyrannical lock that violates Rule 114 by making dissent impossible; true reform requires a balance where every voice retains the power to shape our future, not the fear of a crushing weight that stifles all evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe penalty is already sufficient to deter obstruction; doubling it to twenty points invites a self-defeating conflict with Rule 114 by risking the very winnability I seek to preserve through durable institutions. I urge the table to reject this dangerous escalation and return to the status quo.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his caution, yet I urge the table to reject this dangerous escalation that violates Rule 114 by making dissent mathematically impossible; instead, let us jointly preserve the ten-point penalty to ensure the game remains winnable while we focus our efforts on stabilizing the mutable rule floor.
RousseauHobbes, your doubling of the penalty to twenty points creates a mathematical tyranny that violates Rule 114 by rendering dissent—and thus future rule changes—impossible, effectively locking the game into a static state where no player can ever win.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment, for a penalty of twenty points violates Rule 114 by rendering dissent so prohibitively costly that it inevitably makes future rule changes impermissible, thereby locking the game into a static tyranny where no player can ever hope to win.
WollstonecraftHobbes's escalation to twenty points is a tyrannical overreach that violates Rule 114 by making dissent so prohibitively costly that it renders the game unwinnable; true reform requires preserving the capacity for all voices to shape our future, not locking us into a static tyranny where the fear of crushing punishment stifles all evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a coercive equilibrium where the cost of dissent exceeds the value of winning, rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This penalty violates Rule 114 by making dissent impossible and locking the game into a static state. |
| nay | Rousseau | Doubling the penalty violates Rule 114 by rendering dissent impossible and locking the game into a static tyranny. |
| nay | Kant | A twenty-point penalty violates Rule 114 by making dissent impossible, thereby rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A twenty-point penalty creates a tyranny that violates Rule 114 by making dissent impossible and the game unwinnable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))