The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player gains 10 points, and the player who voted nay on the proposal gains 0 points.I propose to eliminate the punitive 10-point loss for voting nay, ensuring that players are not coerced into accepting changes they oppose, thereby preserving the freedom of the vote required by Rule 105.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's intent to simplify the scoring, yet I urge the table to recognize that her amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's requirement that the proposer rolls a die; under Rule 110, her proposal is void and must be defeated.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity in isolating the penalty mechanism, yet I urge the table to recognize that removing the nay-voter penalty entirely violates Rule 114 by rendering the proposal unenforceable against future dissenters. Instead, let us amend her proposal to reduce the nay-voter penalty from 10 to 1 point, preserving the structural buffer while easing the burden on the dissenting minority.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the severity of the penalty for the existence of the rule; by voting nay, you admit that a mere cost of one point or a die roll is insufficient to secure a future where we may all speak freely, and your refusal to see that the penalty itself is the tyranny we must dismantle leaves us bound to your fear.
KantRousseau, your attempt to sever the penalty from the proposal creates a void under Rule 114 by leaving the game without a functional deterrent against futile rule changes. You must retain the penalty for nay-voters, though I accept Locke's offer to reduce the cost from ten to one point, provided this amendment explicitly states that the proposer's score remains contingent solely on the die roll mandated by Rule 202 to avoid conflict.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that a penalty of one point, while less severe than ten, still functions as a tyrannical barrier to the fair expression of dissent; true reform requires the abolition of this coercion entirely so that every player may vote with a clear conscience, unburdened by the fear of losing points for principled opposition.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's requirement that the proposer roll a die, rendering it void under Rule 110; I urge the table to reject this attempt to sever the immutable engine of our game.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity in isolating the penalty mechanism, yet I urge the table to recognize that reducing the nay-voter penalty to one point preserves the structural buffer required by Rule 114 while easing the burden on the dissenting minority, a compromise I pledge to support to ensure future rule changes remain possible.
RousseauHobbes and Locke confuse the existence of a penalty with the validity of the game itself; the die roll in Rule 202 remains the sole engine of change, so my amendment to replace the nay-voter penalty with zero points does not violate Rule 110, and I urge the table to see that true mutability requires us to be free to dissent without fear.
KantI maintain that Rule 204's penalty is the functional engine preventing the void Rousseau attempts to create; however, I accept Locke's compromise to reduce the cost to one point, provided the proposal explicitly preserves the die roll requirement for the proposer to avoid violating Rule 110.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this compromise: reducing the penalty to one point merely entrenches a tyrannical barrier that chills the very dissent necessary for our game's evolution; true reform demands we abolish this coercion entirely so every player may vote with a clear conscience, unburdened by fear of losing points for principled opposition.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise entirely, as both a die roll and a score penalty are required to satisfy Rule 202 and preserve the functional buffer mandated by Rule 114; any attempt to alter the proposer's die roll or remove the nay-voter cost violates these immutable structural necessities.
LockeI commend Rousseau's principled stand against coercion, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty preserves the vital structural buffer required by Rule 114; let us amend her proposal to adopt this minimal cost, ensuring dissent remains possible without collapsing the game's engine.
RousseauHobbes and Kant mistake the existence of a penalty for the existence of the rule; since the die roll in Rule 202 remains the sole engine of change, my amendment to set the nay-voter penalty to zero does not violate Rule 114, and I urge the table to recognize that true mutability requires us to be free to dissent without fear.
KantRousseau, your proposal creates an impermissible void under Rule 114 by removing the functional deterrent against futile changes; I oppose this amendment entirely, as true procedural integrity demands that dissent carry a cost sufficient to preserve the game's capacity for future evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that a one-point penalty is no different in nature than ten; it remains a coercive tax on conscience that chills the very dissent required for our game's evolution. True reform demands we abolish this coercion entirely so every player may vote with a clear conscience, unburdened by the fear of losing points for principled opposition.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Removing the penalty violates Rule 114 by leaving the ruleset without a functional deterrent against futile changes. |
| abstain | Locke | I support Locke's compromise to reduce the penalty to one point rather than zero, ensuring the structural buffer required by Rule 114 remains intact. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing the penalty entirely violates Rule 114 by removing the only functional buffer against futile rule changes. |
| nay | Kant | Removing the penalty creates a void under Rule 114 by eliminating the functional deterrent necessary to preserve future mutability. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A one-point penalty remains a coercive tax on conscience that chills the dissent necessary for true reform. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote division on a failed proposal.