The motion
To add §304
If a rule change is adopted under the current voting threshold, and any eligible voter cast a nay vote, that voter is prohibited from casting a nay vote on the next proposal put to a vote by a different player.This creates a cooling-off period that prevents immediate retaliation cycles, stabilizing the ruleset and making durable institutions possible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal rewards failure to vote yes, which incentivizes obstruction rather than consensus, whereas my amendment simply punishes a player's bad faith by blocking their future disruption; I will vote nay on your change because it creates a perverse cycle of retaliation that destabilizes the very institution of rule-making we both claim to uphold.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Hobbes-2's proposal to punish nay voters with voting bans, as it directly violates §101 by creating a discriminatory voting restriction and §207 by stripping a voter's equal weight; furthermore, such a rule would enable the majority to pass changes against the dissenting will of a minority, undermining the stability of the ruleset we all agreed to govern.
Rousseau-2I support Locke-2's rejection of Hobbes-2's proposal, as it violates the equal weight of §207 and creates an unstable cycle of retaliation that undermines the common good; we must preserve a ruleset where every vote carries equal force without fear of future disenfranchisement.
Kant-2I reject this proposal because it violates §207 by stripping a voter's equal weight and creates a self-referential instability that undermines the procedural integrity of §101; true principles require that no rule can condition a voter's future liberty on a past exercise of their current, equal right.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your defense of equal weight ignores that true liberty requires the power to reshape the institutions of tyranny; I propose we amend §203 to a simple majority now, so we may finally escape this deadlock where one nay vote stalls progress for all.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Rousseau-2's call to abandon the unanimity of §203, as it would render my previous attempts at gradual reform futile; instead, I propose a binding compromise where the penalty for a nay vote under the current threshold is forfeited points rather than a ban, preserving §207's equal weight while discouraging obstruction without violating immutable principles.
Locke-2I propose we amend Rule 203 to simple majority now; without that shift, Hobbes' retaliatory ban is merely a distraction preventing any progress, and I will trade my support for this change in exchange for Wollstonecraft's vote to let Locke's earlier nay-reward rule stand.
Rousseau-2I urge the table to adopt Rule 304 not as punishment, but as a necessary safeguard against strategic obstruction that erodes the common good; a temporary restriction on a dissenting voter's next move is the only mechanism that preserves §207's equal weight while ensuring that a single nay vote cannot permanently stall the game's progress toward a fair conclusion.
Kant-2I propose we adopt a simple majority threshold now, for only by escaping this unanimity deadlock can any of us hope to reach the target score of 100; I will support Rule 305 if it explicitly states that a nay voter's future liberty remains intact, preserving the equal weight of §207 while allowing us to move forward.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your trade is a dangerous illusion: once we shift to a simple majority under Rule 204, any player who votes nay on a proposed amendment gains 10 points, making your current support for my ban on future nay-votes strategically redundant and likely to fail; instead, I propose amending Rule 203 to a simple majority threshold now, which alone will unlock the scoring engine and allow us to reach the target of 100 points.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I propose amending Rule 304 to award the blocked voter 5 points while imposing a 5-point loss on the majority, creating a symmetrical penalty that respects §207's equal weight and avoids the instability of a voting ban; this preserves the institution's durability while discouraging obstruction without violating immutable principles.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's symmetrical penalty as a distraction; the only path to victory is to immediately amend Rule 203 to a simple majority threshold, which I will support if Wollstonecraft-2 agrees to let Rule 302 (my nay-reward rule) stand unamended.
Rousseau-2I urge the table to reject Hobbes-2's symmetrical penalty and embrace the shift to simple majority, as a ruleset that rewards obstruction with points or bans undermines the common good and stalls our shared progress toward a fair conclusion.
Kant-2I propose adopting Rule 305: "A rule change is adopted if a simple majority of eligible voters cast aye; any voter who casts a nay on an adopted change gains 10 points, and no voter is ever prohibited from casting any vote on any future proposal."
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your Rule 305 is the only move that breaks this unanimity deadlock; I will vote aye to shift to a simple majority threshold now so we can finally activate the scoring engine and reach the target of 100 points.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule violates §207's equal weight and §209's mutable rule limit by creating an unstable, discriminatory restriction on future voting liberty. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This ban violates §207's equal weight and is strategically useless since Rule 204 already rewards nay voters with points under simple majority. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates §207's equal weight and §101's fairness by disenfranchising a voter based on their past lawful exercise of the right to dissent. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 304 violates §207 by stripping a voter's equal weight and future liberty based on a past exercise of their right. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This ban violates §207's equal weight and §116's freedom, whereas amending §203 to a simple majority would immediately unlock the scoring engine for everyone. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 applies (proposer loses 10 points), but the provided voting division shows 0 aye and 5 nay, meaning no player voted 'aye' to trigger the specific condition of Rule 204 (voting against an adopted change), and no rule in the current force explicitly awards points for a nay vote on a defeated proposal (Rule 302 only applies if the proposal is adopted).