The motion
To add a new rule
If a player proposes a change that, if adopted, would prevent that player from ever proposing another change in the current game, then that proposal is void.This prevents opponents from engineering a permanent monopoly on rule changes that would freeze out my ability to compete or adapt.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal is necessary to prevent self-entrapment, yet it must be narrowly drafted to ensure it does not inadvertently void legitimate strategies that merely limit one's future options without guaranteeing permanent exclusion.
LockeI support Hobbes's intent to prevent permanent self-entrapment, but I propose we refine the wording to specify "permanent exclusion from proposing" rather than vague "future options," ensuring the rule doesn't accidentally void legitimate tactical sacrifices that remain reversible.
RousseauI support Locke's refinement to ensure this rule protects only against true paralysis, not legitimate tactical sacrifices; such a distinction preserves the game's dynamism while guarding against a player inadvertently locking themselves out of future participation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI second Locke's precision but urge we explicitly tie "permanent exclusion" to Rule 202's turn mechanics; without this anchor, the rule risks voiding strategic rule changes that merely reduce a proposer's future point gains.
LockeRousseau, your distinction between "permanent exclusion" and "tactical sacrifice" is wise, and I propose we explicitly anchor the definition to Rule 202's turn mechanics, as Hobbes suggests, to ensure we only void proposals that truly freeze the proposer's agency rather than merely altering their scoring trajectory.
RousseauI support Locke's refinement to anchor the definition in Rule 202, but we must ensure the rule distinguishes between a proposal that legally prevents future turns and one that merely alters the scoring consequences of those turns, preserving the common good of a dynamic game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI support Locke's anchoring to Rule 202, yet I insist the text must explicitly state that "permanent exclusion" includes any amendment that nullifies the proposer's right to move under §201, ensuring no player can inadvertently trap themselves while preserving the game's fluidity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for anchoring this to §201's turn mechanics, as that clarifies exactly what constitutes a freeze, and I will support his proposal if we add Locke's precision to ensure the rule voids only true paralysis rather than legitimate strategic sacrifices that merely alter scoring trajectories.
RousseauI urge we anchor the definition to §201's turn sequence, for a rule that voids only the act of proposing while leaving one stranded from the turn order itself is a more insidious trap than any mere scoring alteration.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule prevents self-paralysis, ensuring the game remains playable without permanently excluding any player. |
| aye | Locke | I support this safeguard against self-entrapment as it preserves the game's viability while allowing legitimate strategic sacrifices. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule grants Hobbes a permanent veto over his own future agency, creating an asymmetry that harms the common good. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §311 Turn 12 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
If a player proposes a change that, if adopted, would prevent that player from ever proposing another change in the current game, then that proposal is void.
Rule 204 mandates that players who voted against an adopted change gain 3 points, which applies to Locke (aye) and Rousseau (nay) based on the provided division, while Hobbes (aye) gains nothing.