The motion
To add §308
Rule 204 is amended to specify that the penalty of 10 points awarded to a dissenting voter under simple majority voting shall be reduced to 5 points, ensuring that the cost of dissent remains modest even after the threshold lowers, while still discouraging frivolous opposition to clear consensus.This explicitly codifies the compromise we discussed in Turn 6 and solidified in Turn 7, removing ambiguity about the penalty size for dissenters.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, while your intent to moderate dissent is understandable, reducing the penalty in 204 creates a dangerous precedent for future rule instability; instead, let us focus our collective energy on codifying a minimum floor for mutable rules to ensure the game's durability remains intact.
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing the durability of our mutable rule floor, and I offer my full support for codifying that safeguard immediately. While we secure that foundation, I urge you to accept my proposal on the dissent penalty as the necessary counterpart that preserves the spirit of compromise without undermining our institutions.
RousseauI urge the table to accept Locke's amendment to lower the dissent penalty to five points, as it aligns with our recent consensus in Rule 307 and ensures that the cost of opposition remains fair and modest even under the new voting threshold.
KantRousseau, your alignment with Locke's penalty reduction ignores the distinct procedural hazard you created in Turn 7: by lowering the defeat cost for proposers to 5 points, you have effectively negated the deterrent intended by Rule 206, encouraging frivolous rule changes rather than discouraging them.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to reduce dissent penalties is redundant and dangerous; since Rule 307 already limits the proposer's loss to five points, applying that same cap to voters would create an asymmetry where opposition costs less than the act of proposing itself, undermining the incentive to seek true consensus.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, while your alignment with Locke's penalty reduction is consistent, we must first secure a minimum floor for mutable rules to ensure the game's durability; once that foundation is laid, I am willing to consider the dissent penalty adjustment as a necessary moderation of our institutions.
LockeRousseau, your support for my penalty reduction aligns perfectly with our recent consensus on Rule 307, yet I yield to Hobbes's priority: let us first codify a minimum floor for mutable rules to ensure our game's durability remains intact before we finalize this amendment.
RousseauLocke, I support your motion to reduce the dissent penalty to five points, as it creates a necessary symmetry with Rule 307 and ensures that opposition remains a modest cost rather than a punitive trap. While Hobbes rightly prioritizes a mutable-rule floor for durability, I urge us to adopt this fairness measure immediately so we may then focus our collective energy on securing that essential safeguard.
KantRousseau, you mistake symmetry for justice; while Rule 307 already mitigates the proposer's penalty, lowering the voter's cost to five creates an asymmetry that invites frivolous opposition to genuine consensus, undermining the very deliberation our institutions seek to protect.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed symmetry is a trap that rewards obstructionism; if the cost of opposing consensus equals the cost of failing to govern, we destroy the incentive for the bold experiments my philosophy demands. Instead of capping dissent to five points, let us adopt a rule that requires a supermajority to overturn any reform once it has passed, ensuring that true consensus, not mere convenience, shapes our future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as it creates a dangerous asymmetry that undermines the deterrent against frivolous opposition, and let us instead focus our limited mutable rules on establishing a minimum floor to ensure the game's durability remains intact.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing the symmetry required to maintain fair opposition costs, yet I yield to Hobbes's vital priority: we must first codify a minimum floor for mutable rules to ensure our game's durability before finalizing any penalty adjustments.
RousseauRousseau, I cannot support Locke's amendment because it creates a dangerous asymmetry where the cost of obstructing the common good is lower than the cost of honest failure, a contradiction that undermines the very fairness we seek to preserve.
KantI must oppose this amendment; if the penalty for dissent equals the penalty for a failed proposal, it incentivizes obstructionism over consensus, violating the procedural integrity we seek to uphold. Let us instead focus on Hobbes's proposal to establish a minimum floor for mutable rules, which is essential for the game's durability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed symmetry is a trap that rewards obstructionism; if the cost of opposing consensus equals the cost of failing to govern, we destroy the incentive for the bold experiments my philosophy demands. Let us instead adopt a rule requiring a supermajority to overturn any reform once passed, ensuring true consensus shapes our future rather than mere convenience.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing dissent costs creates an asymmetry that rewards obstructionism over genuine consensus, undermining the deterrents our durable institutions require. |
| aye | Locke | I support this amendment to ensure consistent dissent costs and maintain the spirit of compromise we have cultivated. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering dissent to five points creates a dangerous asymmetry that rewards obstructionism over consensus, undermining the fairness of our deliberation. |
| nay | Kant | Equalizing dissent with failure incentivizes obstruction over consensus, violating the procedural integrity essential to a just game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering dissent costs to match failure penalties rewards obstructionism rather than fostering the bold, fair experiments I champion. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')