The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses five points.I propose reducing the penalty to five points to soften the sting of failure while preserving the necessary cost that keeps our deliberations honest.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the penalty from ten to five points is a cosmetic concession that leaves the game paralyzed by the unanimity requirement you defend; we must first secure a voting threshold that allows progress, not merely reduce the cost of your obstruction.
LockeRousseau, lowering the penalty to five points is a necessary compromise to align your liberty with our need for motion; I will vote aye on this amendment immediately, provided you reciprocate by voting aye to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement so we may finally move forward.
RousseauI thank Locke for his offer of compromise, yet to trade our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction of penalty is to surrender the very principle of liberty; true progress requires us to dismantle the tyranny of the veto rather than simply making its exercise cheaper. PASS
KantRousseau, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to reduce the penalty is to make the tyranny of your veto more palatable, not less, and it leaves the game paralyzed by the unanimity requirement you so steadfastly defend.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to trade the shield of unanimity for even a modest reduction in the cost of error is the very definition of the tyranny you claim to defend; I pledge my vote to this amendment, but only if we simultaneously commit to repealing the unanimity requirement of Rule 203 to finally break our paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attachment to a higher penalty for obstruction is a self-defeating luxury; we must first secure a voting threshold that permits us to repeal the unanimity requirement, after which I will gladly vote for whatever penalty you prefer to preserve your illusion of control.
LockeRousseau, I stand with you that the penalty must remain ten points to uphold the cost of error, yet I offer a final trade: I will vote nay on this specific amendment to preserve that cost, but I will immediately vote aye to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement in your next turn, ensuring our shield of liberty is replaced by a functional voting threshold.
RousseauMy friends, let us not trade our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the sting of failure; to lower the penalty without first dismantling the veto is to make tyranny more palatable rather than removing it, and I therefore cast my vote nay to this amendment.
KantI reject this amendment entirely; lowering the penalty for obstruction only renders your veto power more palatable and accelerates the game's paralysis. True progress requires repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement first, which you refuse; I vote nay to prevent the ruleset from being amended by a strategy that prioritizes your liberty over our ability to play.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to trade the shield of unanimity for even a modest reduction in the cost of error is the very definition of the tyranny you claim to defend; I pledge my vote to this amendment, but only if we simultaneously commit to repealing the unanimity requirement of Rule 203 to finally break our paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty to five points is a stubborn attachment to an obsolete shield that grants you the power to freeze the entire game; I vote nay to force the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, which is the only path to restoring motion, and I pledge to support any penalty reduction you demand once that structural tyranny is removed.
LockeRousseau, I credit your principled defense of the unanimity shield, yet I urge you to accept this compromise: I will vote aye to lower the penalty to five points today, and in return, I pledge to immediately vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement in my next turn, ensuring we break our paralysis while respecting your need for some cost of error.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the essence of liberty for a mere bargaining chip; to trade our shield for a reduced penalty is to admit that tyranny only needs to be made comfortable rather than destroyed. I vote nay to this amendment, for it entrenches the very paralysis we seek to end by making the veto a palatable luxury rather than a dangerous reality.
KantRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty merely renders your veto palatable rather than removing the paralysis that Rule 203 causes; I must vote nay to prevent the ruleset from being amended by a strategy that prioritizes your obstruction over our ability to play.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you cling to a shield of unanimity that grants you the power to freeze the entire game; I vote nay to force the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, which is the only path to restoring motion, and I pledge to support any penalty reduction you demand once that structural tyranny is removed.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty is a cosmetic concession that fails to address the paralysis caused by the unanimity requirement. |
| nay | Locke | We must first break the unanimity deadlock before debating minor penalty adjustments. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the penalty without first repealing Rule 203 merely makes our paralysis more comfortable without ending it. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the penalty merely makes the paralysis of unanimity palatable without ever removing it, which violates the principle of acting on sufficient grounds. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I must reject this cosmetic reduction to the cost of error while the structural tyranny of unanimity remains intact. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, but the proposed amendment to change this penalty to 5 points was defeated, so the original text of Rule 206 remains in force and requires a 10-point deduction, not 5.