The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended to read: A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, provided the proposal explicitly states the adoption occurred under this modified threshold.We must explicitly anchor the bonus and binding nature of overruling votes to the specific moment of majority adoption to prevent future paradoxes where unanimous consent is claimed after the fact.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to bind dissenters via penalty points ignores Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future changes impermissible; such a penalty effectively creates an unbreakable veto that calcifies the ruleset. I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the path to majority rule without coercion.
LockeHobbes, your concern about coercion is valid, but this penalty merely incentivizes consensus rather than blocking it; I propose we amend the text to explicitly credit your principle of voluntary unity by removing the phrase "gains 10 points," securing unanimous adoption while preserving the safety valve.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromised text, for removing the penalty merely leaves us with a hollow promise of unity while the threat of paralysis looms; true justice requires that we either accept the risk of majority rule or face the certainty of stasis, but never pretend that coercion can be disguised as voluntary consensus. PASS
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of coercion is misplaced when we consider that the threat of losing points for opposing progress is merely the necessary friction of a society moving toward liberty; without such stakes, the rules calcify into the very tyranny we seek to overthrow.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for even the threat of points for dissent creates a perverse incentive to propose impossible changes that fail, thereby triggering the penalty loop that Hobbes rightly fears; instead of a coerced majority, we should seek a voluntary one through a gradual, transparent shift in the voting threshold itself.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of all compromise risks the very paralysis you claim to avoid, so I propose we adopt Hobbes's gradual shift while preserving Wollstonecraft's incentive for courage by retaining a modest penalty for dissent.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the cure for the disease; your "gradual shift" leaves us vulnerable to the very calcification I fear, and adding points for dissent merely rewards the very strategic failures that threaten to freeze our progress.
KantRousseau, your rejection of Hobbes's gradual shift ignores the practical necessity of avoiding deadlock; I propose we adopt his amendment to shift the threshold to simple majority, but we must explicitly repeal the punitive penalty against dissenters to preserve the integrity of voluntary consent.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your absolute rejection of incentives ignores that without the threat of penalty, players will rationally choose paralysis to avoid risk, calcifying the game into the very tyranny I oppose; we must retain the cost of dissent as the necessary friction that forces us toward the liberty of majority rule.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on repealing the penalty undermines the very safety valve needed to prevent Rule 114 violations; the threat of losing points forces players to propose viable changes rather than stalling strategies that lead to deadlock. I urge the table to reject the proposal in its current form, as it rewards obstructionism by making it cheaper to vote nay on doomed proposals, thereby inviting the very chaos we seek to avoid.
LockeRousseau, your fear of coercion is misplaced; I propose we adopt Hobbes's gradual shift to a simple majority while removing the penalty to preserve voluntary consent, ensuring we avoid the paralysis you rightly fear without inviting the chaos I seek to prevent.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the cure for the disease; your "gradual shift" leaves us vulnerable to the very calcification I fear, and adding points for dissent merely rewards the very strategic failures that threaten to freeze our progress.
KantI urge the table to reject any proposal that retains penalties for dissent, as such coercion violates the principle of voluntary consent and risks creating the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids; we must adopt Hobbes's gradual shift to simple majority while explicitly repealing the punitive clause to preserve the integrity of our procedural freedom.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to accept Hobbes's gradual shift ignores that without a clear path to majority rule, the threat of Rule 114-violating deadlocks will inevitably calcify our progress; let us adopt the threshold shift now and remove the punitive points to honor Kant's principle of voluntary consent, proving that true liberty requires both the power of the majority and the freedom to dissent without penalty.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal rewards obstructionism and invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids by incentivizing players to vote nay on doomed proposals just to gain points. |
| nay | Locke | This rule rewards obstructionism by making it profitable to vote against proposals that could shift the threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau | Penalizing dissent rewards strategic failure and calcifies the ruleset rather than fostering organic consensus. |
| nay | Kant | Penalizing dissent violates the principle that procedures must be accepted if invoked against anyone. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding dissent with points incentivizes strategic obstruction rather than genuine consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.