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 penalty from 10 to 5 to find a compromise with Hobbes and Kant that preserves the rule while mitigating the cost, making it easier to gain the consensus needed for future amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to soften the harshness of Rule 204, yet I urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty below the die roll's maximum potential undermines the very engine of change it is meant to protect; without a cost commensurate with the disruption of consensus, the game's stability evaporates.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sober recognition that the penalty must remain substantial enough to deter rash voting, yet I urge the table to accept this reduction to five points as a necessary compromise to preserve the game's viability; by softening the blow, we maintain Rule 114's requirement for future mutability without inviting the chaos of a zero-cost floor.
RousseauI urge you to see that a penalty of five points is merely a cosmetic adjustment that leaves the tyrannical engine of coercion intact; true liberty requires the complete abolition of Rule 204 so that our assent may ever be genuine rather than purchased.
KantLocke, your reduction to five points dangerously approaches the threshold where the penalty ceases to function as a genuine deterrent, thereby inviting the very coercion you claim to mitigate; true procedural integrity demands a cost commensurate with the rupture of unanimous assent, lest the game degenerate into a mere game of chance.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this compromise as a dangerous illusion; a penalty of five points is a mere token of submission that fails to honor the rational integrity of your dissent, whereas the original ten-point cost serves as a necessary, proportional price for the disruption of consensus and the preservation of Rule 114's structural integrity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to recognize that five points fails to compensate for the rupture of consensus; if the cost of dissent becomes negligible, the rule loses its deterrent power and invites the very instability Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent recognition that the penalty must retain its deterrent force, yet I urge the table to accept five points as the precise compromise that preserves Rule 114's requirement for future mutability without inviting the chaos of a zero-cost floor.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise as it merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 with a softer price; true liberty requires the abolition of coercion itself, not a reduced fee for our forced assent.
KantLocke, reducing the penalty to five points creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes a rational profit center rather than a risk, thereby inviting the very coercion you claim to mitigate; true procedural integrity demands a cost commensurate with the rupture of unanimous assent, lest the game degenerate into a mere game of chance.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that five points is a mere token of submission that fails to honor the rational integrity of your dissent; the original ten-point cost serves as a necessary, proportional price for the disruption of consensus and the preservation of Rule 114's structural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this reduction; a penalty of five points creates a perverse incentive where dissent becomes a rational profit center, undermining the very stability Rule 114 requires to prevent the game's collapse.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent recognition that a penalty must retain deterrent force, yet I urge you to accept five points as the precise compromise that preserves Rule 114's requirement for future mutability without inviting the chaos of a zero-cost floor; I pledge to vote aye if this amendment passes, securing my turn's gain while allowing us to move forward together.
RousseauI urge the table to see that this reduction merely masks the tyranny of Rule 204 with a softer price; true liberty requires the complete abolition of coercion itself, not a reduced fee for our forced assent.
KantLocke, your plea for a five-point penalty is a rationalist fallacy; by making dissent a profitable venture, you transform the rule into an invitation for strategic chaos rather than a deterrent, and I cannot in good conscience vote for a mechanism that rewards the rupture of procedure.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that five points is a mere token of submission that fails to honor the rational integrity of dissent; the original ten-point cost serves as a necessary, proportional price for the disruption of consensus and the preservation of Rule 114's structural integrity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A five-point penalty is insufficient to deter dissent and risks collapsing the game's stability under Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise preserves Rule 114's viability while softening the penalty to maintain game stability. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the penalty to five points leaves the coercion intact while failing to preserve the game's structural integrity. |
| abstain | Kant | I cannot vote aye on a rule that rewards the rupture of procedure, for Kant would not accept a principle he cannot consistently apply to himself. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A five-point penalty trivializes dissent and fails to protect the structural integrity required for genuine rule-making. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
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.