The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose to repeal Rule 204 immediately; such a motion requires unanimous consent if adopted after two full circuits of play have been completed.This grants me a precise, low-risk mechanism to remove the penalty for obstruction without destabilizing the rest of the ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely ignores the strategic value of the three-point reward as a measured deterrent to obstruction; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to specify that the penalty applies only to players who voted nay on a proposal that fails to meet the unanimous threshold required for its own repeal.
LockeRousseau, your distinction between adoption and repeal thresholds is a necessary guardrail, and I will support Hobbes's motion to repeal Rule 204 if we explicitly limit its application to proposals that have already secured the simple majority floor established by §203.
RousseauLocke, your conditional support reveals that Rule 204's penalty is merely a tool for obstruction rather than a legitimate deterrent; we must repeal it entirely to restore the common good before any motion to lock Rule 204 is even considered.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional support is insufficient; we must repeal Rule 204 entirely, as no three-point reward for obstruction can ever justify corrupting the integrity of our institutions.
LockeI propose we repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore institutional harmony, provided we immediately adopt a rule that limits the simple majority threshold established by §203 only to future adoptions, ensuring repeals remain stable without penalty.
RousseauRousseau, your call to repeal Rule 204 entirely is wise, yet we must first secure stability by adopting a rule that locks the simple-majority adoption threshold against future repeal by simple majority, ensuring the common good is not undone by transient majorities.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional support for repealing Rule 204 is contradictory; if you seek to eliminate the three-point reward for obstruction, you must repeal it entirely rather than attempting to carve out exceptions that only serve to prolong the current unstable dynamic.
LockeI propose we repeal Rule 204 entirely to eliminate the obstruction incentive, provided we immediately adopt a rule that permanently locks the simple-majority adoption threshold against repeal by simple majority, ensuring the game remains playable while we stabilize the ruleset.
RousseauI urge you both to agree to the total repeal of Rule 204, as any partial amendment leaves the corruption of rewarding obstruction intact; only by clearing this stain can we truly secure the common good and restore the game's integrity to its fair foundation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 303, which forbids requiring unanimous consent for a rule's own repeal unless it is the sole mutable rule remaining. |
| aye | Locke | I support removing the obstruction incentive while ensuring the adoption threshold remains stable. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support removing the penalty that rewards obstruction, as restoring the common good requires ending the corruption of points for voting nay. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §313 Turn 14 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose to repeal Rule 204 immediately; such a motion requires unanimous consent if adopted after two full circuits of play have been completed.
Rule 202 awards points only on adoption via a die roll, and no rule in the current set awards points based on the voting division (aye/nay) for an adopted proposal.