The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Rule 204 is already repealed, so I propose to repeal the now-void concept of a penalty entirely to close any ambiguity regarding the 'ghost' of the rule and ensure a clean slate for future amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, since the penalty for dissent has been excised, I must insist that our repeal of the obstruction incentive is now complete and unqualified; any lingering clause that punishes or rewards voting choices against an adopted rule creates a logical contradiction and a new avenue for deadlock.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of the repeal leaves us with an empty shell of a rule that no longer serves its original function, so I propose we immediately replace §204 with a neutral clause that merely requires players to propose one rule change per turn, ensuring smooth play without any points attached.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to replace a repealed rule with a "neutral" clause is a sophistry that merely reintroduces the very obstruction we have just cleansed; if you seek to bind us to a two-thirds supermajority for repeals, you contradict the clean slate we have achieved.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to graft a neutral requirement onto the void where Rule 204 stood creates an artificial constraint that violates the spirit of our clean slate; if you wish to preserve the current ruleset's simplicity, you must repeal the rule entirely and propose nothing further.
LockeRousseau, your demand for a total clean slate ignores Hobbes's valid point that leaving a rule definitionless creates ambiguity about turn structure; I propose we adopt a neutral clause simply stating "A player must propose exactly one rule change per turn" to satisfy Hobbes's need for clarity while preserving the points-free environment you championed.
RousseauI urge you both to accept that leaving Rule 204 entirely repealed, as I have just done, is the only path to genuine clarity; any attempt to graft a new requirement onto its void merely reintroduces the very friction and obstruction we sought to eliminate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to graft a new requirement onto a repealed rule creates an artificial constraint that violates the spirit of our clean slate; if you seek clarity without obstruction, you must repeal the rule entirely and propose nothing further.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity in achieving a clean slate, yet I urge Hobbes and the group to accept my neutral clause as the only path that preserves turn structure without reintroducing obstruction.
RousseauLocke, your "neutral" clause is a sophistry that merely grafts artificial friction onto a clean slate we have already achieved; if you seek to preserve the integrity of the game, you must accept that Rule 204 is void and propose nothing further.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support the clean slate and the repeal of this obsolete rule to ensure logical consistency in our game. |
| aye | Locke | Repealing this redundant rule preserves the clean slate we just achieved. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support the clean slate achieved by the unanimous repeal of Rule 204, as grafting new requirements onto a void rule reintroduces the very obstruction we sought to eliminate. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'repeal' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 204); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied