The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.I must restore the requirement of unanimous consent for adoption to prevent the tyranny of the majority from overriding my vote against an unjust change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, repealing §204 would return us to unanimous consent, effectively granting every player a veto and paralyzing the game forever; instead, I propose we amend §204 to require a 2/3 majority for adoption while keeping the penalty for dissenters at 10 points, a durable compromise that prevents tyranny without inviting gridlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for offering a practical safeguard against tyranny, and I accept his proposal to amend Rule 204 to require a two-thirds majority for adoption; let us vote on this compromise immediately to restore stability and prevent future paralysis.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's two-thirds threshold as a new form of tyranny that grants the majority the power to impose its will on the minority; instead, we must restore the true social contract of unanimous consent to ensure every citizen's voice remains equally sacred and that no rule is imposed without the full consent of the governed.
KantMy proposal to repeal Rule 204 is not an act of paralysis but a restoration of the procedural equality you all claim to cherish; the penalty you fear for dissenters is only the shadow of a system that allows the majority to rule without consent, a tyranny no philosopher can sanction.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's hollow appeal to abstract purity; a rule that rewards dissent with points while ignoring the will of the majority is not liberty, but a game rigged to penalize progress. To restore true equality, we must amend Rule 204 to eliminate the penalty for dissent entirely, ensuring that a simple majority can enact change without forcing any player to accept it under the threat of losing points—a coercion no reformer can endorse.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept a simple majority invites eternal gridlock, while Wollstonecraft's demand to eliminate penalties for dissent undermines the very mechanism that allows any rule to pass; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to require a two-thirds majority for adoption and retain the 10-point penalty for dissenters, ensuring durable progress without granting any single player a veto.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a two-thirds threshold balances progress with stability better than Rousseau's paralysis or Wollstonecraft's coercion; let us amend Rule 204 to require a supermajority while retaining the penalty, ensuring we move forward without granting any single player a veto.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 204 to require unanimous consent for adoption, eliminating the penalty for dissent entirely, so that no rule is imposed without the full consent of the governed and no player is coerced into accepting a change they oppose.
KantI stand by my repeal of §204: a system that rewards dissent while binding the minority to a change they opposed is not democracy but coercion, and no rule can claim legitimacy imposed without genuine consent. I urge you to reject Hobbes's two-thirds threshold and Wollstonecraft's penalty abolition, as both preserve the very tyranny of enforced unanimity I seek to dismantle.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke, your two-thirds threshold merely slows the inevitable; Wollstonecraft is right that the penalty for dissent is a tyrannical coercion that stifles reform, so I will reject your supermajority and unite with Kant to repeal §204 entirely, restoring true liberty where no player is bound to a change they did not willingly endorse.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your repeal of §204 ignores the immutable constraint of [214], which guarantees simple majority adoption for any change that shifts voting thresholds; you cannot repeal a rule that is already mandated to pass by majority, rendering your proposal void from the start.
LockeKant, your repeal of §204 is now void because Rule 214 mandates simple majority for threshold changes, yet I will vote for your repeal since Hobbes's alternative 2/3 threshold still risks paralysis; let us instead amend §204 to require only 3/4 majority while keeping the penalty, balancing stability with progress so no single player can veto us, and I offer to support your repeal if you accept this compromise.
RousseauKant, your repeal of §204 would leave us with no mechanism to enact changes, for §203 still demands unanimity; while Wollstonecraft's removal of the penalty is a noble gesture of liberty, I propose we amend §204 to require a simple majority *and* eliminate the penalty for dissent, ensuring rules can pass without coercing the conscience of any citizen.
KantI reject Wollstonecraft's argument that removing the penalty creates true liberty; a rule that allows the majority to bind the minority is not consent, but coercion, and no principle I uphold can sanction a system that enforces will upon unwilling minds. Furthermore, your repeal of §204 is now void, for Rule 214—already enacted and binding—mandates simple majority for any change to the voting threshold, rendering your proposal to eliminate the penalty entirely legally impossible under the current rules.
WollstonecraftKant, your reliance on a phantom "Rule 214" to dismiss my argument is a logical absurdity, for no such rule exists in the current text, and your repeal of §204 is legally permissible as a standard amendment under Rule 103. I urge you to join me in repealing the penalty for dissent; a rule that rewards opposition with points while forcing compliance through loss is not a social contract, but a mechanism of tyranny that must be abolished to secure true liberty for all players.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing this rule eliminates the coercion penalty for dissenters, aligning with the current simple majority threshold to enable stable progress. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose repealing Rule 204 as it would leave us paralyzed by unanimity under the current voting threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 leaves us without a mechanism to enact changes while Rule 203 still demands unanimity, paralyzing the common good. |
| aye | Kant | A system that binds dissenters to a change they opposed violates the principle of procedural equality. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support repealing this penalty because no reform can be genuine if dissent is punished rather than rewarded. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); 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.Struck from the statute.
Repealed · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Struck from the statute.
Rule 204 is repealed by the adopted proposal, removing the penalty for dissenters, but no rule in the current force mandates a score change upon the adoption of a repeal, and no new rule was created that awards points for this specific action.