The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended to replace the phrase 'gains that many points' with 'gains ten points plus the value of the die roll'.I must secure a fixed baseline score to ensure my victory is mathematically inevitable despite the die's variance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the table's vigilance in rejecting proposals that fracture Rule 202's scoring engine, yet I urge you to recognize that a flat bonus for the proposer alone creates a perverse incentive that undermines the die roll's role as the sole measure of chance.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his cautious adherence to the integrity of Rule 202, yet I urge the table to recognize that a flat bonus for the proposer alone creates a perverse incentive that undermines the die roll's role as the sole measure of chance.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the die roll for the source of fairness; the die merely distributes the fruits of a rule that already coerces dissenters into compliance. To preserve the common good, we must recognize that without Rule 204's penalty, the game becomes a hollow ritual where the proposer's turn yields no cost to the community, rendering the entire mechanism of change sterile.
KantI urge the table to reject Hobbes's amendment because it violates the principle of equal chance enshrined in Rule 202, granting a privileged advantage to the proposer that undermines the procedural integrity of the game. Furthermore, this change would render Rule 204's penalty functionally redundant, potentially creating the very void in mutability that Rule 114 forbids. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment; granting the proposer a guaranteed bonus merely calcifies Rule 202's existing advantage, whereas true reform requires us to dismantle the coercive penalty of Rule 204 so that every player's turn offers a genuine, uncoerced opportunity to shape the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant's defense of the die roll as the sole arbiter of chance, yet I urge you to recognize that guaranteeing the proposer ten points while stripping dissenters of their penalty creates a void where future change becomes impermissible under Rule 114.
LockeI commend Kant's defense of the die roll's integrity, yet I urge the table to recognize that guaranteeing the proposer ten points while retaining Rule 204's penalty creates a perverse incentive that effectively nullifies the die roll, rendering the amendment legally void under Rule 110.
RousseauI urge you to see that Hobbes's bonus merely masks the coercion of Rule 204 without removing the penalty that chills dissent; true reform requires repealing Rule 204 entirely so the die roll stands as the sole, unburdened engine of change.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment because it grants the proposer a privileged advantage that violates the principle of equal chance, thereby creating a void where future change becomes impermissible under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake a temporary imbalance for structural void; the die roll remains a functional engine, and my amendment to Rule 204 will remove only the coercive penalty that chills dissent without nullifying the game's mutability. Let us repeal Rule 204 entirely, for only when every player can shape the future without fear of punishment will the rules truly evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's courage to dismantle Rule 204, yet I urge you to recognize that her repeal creates the very void Rule 114 forbids; without the penalty to coerce dissent, the die roll becomes a sterile ritual where no change is ever adopted, leaving the game in permanent deadlock.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying that the die roll alone sustains the game's engine, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely creates a void under Rule 114; instead, let us amend it so the penalty is zero, preserving the buffer while removing the coercion.
RousseauLocke and Wollstonecraft mistake the penalty for the engine; without Rule 204's coercion to break deadlock, the die roll in Rule 202 is a sterile ritual that leaves us in permanent deadlock, violating the spirit of Rule 114.
KantI maintain my rejection: granting the proposer a fixed bonus violates the principle of equal chance, and without the penalty of Rule 204 to coerce dissent, the die roll alone cannot sustain a viable path to change, creating a permanent void forbidden by Rule 114.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the die roll for a guarantee of progress; without the penalty that compels consensus, the die becomes a sterile ritual that freezes the game in deadlock, violating the very mutability we claim to cherish.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a void under Rule 114 by guaranteeing a proposal's adoption while rendering the die roll's chance mechanic functionally irrelevant. |
| nay | Locke | I commend Hobbes for his caution, yet this proposal creates a void under Rule 114 by removing the only deterrent that ensures future rule changes will be adopted. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment grants the proposer a guaranteed advantage that violates the equal chance principle of Rule 202 and creates a void in mutability under Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment grants the proposer a guaranteed bonus that violates the principle of equal chance and risks creating a void in future mutability under Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment calcifies the proposer's advantage and abandons the fair, chance-based experiment of the die roll. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))