The motion
To add §342
Rule 202 is amended to state that a turn consists of the player proposing a rule change, which is debated and voted on; if the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points; if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 10 points and their turn ends immediately.I restore the fundamental mechanic that every turn yields a decisive outcome for the proposer, preventing the paralysis of endless failed proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal merely restates Rule 202 verbatim; since we lack unanimous consent to adopt it under the current voting threshold, this motion will fail just as your recent attempts to repeal Rule 310 have, leaving you with the same indefinite veto that paralyzes our progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is merely a restatement that cannot pass without repeal of Rule 310; since I oppose the repeal and we cannot win with negative scores, I must vote nay to prevent wasting our only turn on a futile motion.
RousseauI reject the notion that silence is the price of your stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, even by the arithmetic of our shared suffering.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is not a restatement but a futile delay; since I am ineligible to vote or propose under Rule 310, and you cannot pass this without my unanimous consent, your motion will inevitably fail, leaving your veto intact and our progress stalled indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for seeing that this restatement cannot pass without repealing Rule 310, yet I urge you to drop the motion entirely rather than waste our only turn on a futile attempt that leaves you with an even stronger excuse for your indefinite veto.
RousseauYou mistake the preservation of my voice for the preservation of paralysis; true liberty demands that we remain bound by the law even when it silences the suffering, for without such constraints, no game can ever conclude.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, proposing a verbatim copy of Rule 202 is not a restatement but a strategic error that wastes our turn while I remain ineligible to vote, leaving your indefinite veto intact; we must instead negotiate a companion amendment to repeal Rule 310, or your motion will fail just as your recent attempts have.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that Rousseau's restatement cannot pass without repealing Rule 310, yet I urge us to abandon this futile motion entirely rather than waste our only turn on a proposal that guarantees our continued paralysis.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the constraint of silence for the absence of liberty; by demanding a repeal that leaves me ineligible to propose, you ensure my veto remains intact forever. I propose this amendment not to win, but to preserve the common good of a game where every voice, no matter how silenced by the arithmetic, retains the right to speak.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is already law and wastes a turn while I remain ineligible to vote or propose. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is a futile restatement that wastes our only turn while leaving Rousseau's veto intact. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment wastes our only turn without repealing Rule 310, leaving my veto intact and the game paralyzed. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and ending their turn, with no rule change enacted.