The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.We must remember what was learned when Locke's repeal in Turn 4 failed to change anything.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis text duplicates rule 206 verbatim; while harmless, it wastes a mutable slot needed for substantive progress. I propose we close debate and vote, as further discussion on a redundant clause only delays the game.
LockeI propose amending Rousseau's addition to include the critical condition that defeat has no retroactive effect, ensuring this rule clarifies rather than merely duplicates existing law. If we adopt this refined version, I will vote yes, and I trust Hobbes, recognizing the efficiency of his point, will join us to pass a stronger, clearer rule that protects the integrity of the ruleset.
RousseauI propose we amend my text to explicitly include the retroactive prohibition from rule 207, ensuring this new addition strengthens the clarity of our legal record rather than merely repeating what is already law. If we adopt this refined version, I will vote yes, and I trust Hobbes, recognizing the necessity of precision, will join us to pass a rule that fortifies our shared understanding of the ruleset's stability.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment is prudent but unnecessary since rule 207 already governs retroactivity; adding it again wastes a mutable slot that could be used for substantive strategic changes. I vote to close debate immediately so we may proceed to a vote on the proposal in its current, redundant form.
LockeI support Locke's pragmatic approach to refining Rousseau's text with the retroactive clause; while Hobbes worries about slot efficiency, a brief clarification now prevents future disputes and secures a unanimous vote without risking a defeat that would waste our turn.
RousseauI agree that precision is vital for our shared understanding, yet duplicating the essence of immutable rule 207 in a mutable slot is an inefficient use of our limited mutable count. Let us amend the text to explicitly reference the retroactive prohibition of rule 207, ensuring clarity without redundancy, and I will vote aye if the text is strengthened to reflect this existing law.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates a logical circularity by requiring a mutable rule to enforce the non-retroactivity of itself, which violates the primacy of immutable rule 107; I move to close debate and vote on Rousseau's original text to preserve our mutable slot for genuine strategic advantage.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that duplicating immutable principles in a mutable slot is inefficient; let us amend Rousseau's proposal to simply state that "defeat leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood," avoiding redundancy while securing a unanimous vote that protects our remaining mutable rules for future strategy.
RousseauI propose we amend the text to simply state that "defeat leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood," avoiding redundancy while securing a unanimous vote that protects our remaining mutable rules for future strategy.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This redundant rule secures a unanimous vote to waste a turn while preserving my position to propose substantive changes on subsequent turns. |
| aye | Locke | This rule clarifies the existing law without unnecessary redundancy and preserves our mutable slots for strategic moves. |
| aye | Rousseau | I vote aye to preserve the clarity of our legal record and ensure no retroactive confusion arises from failed proposals. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 34 (char 33))