The motion
To add a new rule
Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player gains points equal to the result of a six-sided die roll and incurs no penalty for voting against the change.I propose to repeal Rule 204's punitive clause, as the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the necessary engine for scoring, and removing the penalty aligns the rules with the common good by eliminating coercion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her attempt to dismantle Rule 204, yet I urge you to recognize that her proposal leaves the game without a sufficient buffer against deadlock, violating the spirit of Rule 114. A penalty of even one point preserves the necessary friction to ensure mutable rules remain functional and the game does not collapse into unregulated chaos.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her principled defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that a zero-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where dissidents gain nothing but the right to oppose, effectively nullifying the deterrence Rule 204 was meant to provide.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos ignores the plain meaning of Rule 114: a state with one mutable rule and a scoring mechanism that rewards dissent cannot render future rule changes impermissible. I urge you to vote nay only if you believe the die roll itself is insufficient to sustain the game's engine, for without the penalty, the game remains functional and fair.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal: removing the penalty for dissent renders Rule 204 a mere fiction rather than a functional buffer, thereby creating the exact state of unregulated chaos Rule 114 forbids. A principled ruleset must retain a non-zero cost for obstruction to ensure that mutable rules remain truly mutable and future changes remain possible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine of our game; by repealing the punitive fiction of Rule 204, we ensure that every dissenting vote remains a free exercise of reason rather than a coerced sacrifice, thereby fulfilling the spirit of Rule 114 by guaranteeing that mutability survives not through threat, but through the very possibility of disagreement.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's vigilance, yet I urge us to recognize that a zero-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes costless, effectively nullifying the deterrence required to preserve the game's engine against the very chaos Rule 114 forbids.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her commitment to the purity of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a zero-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes costless, effectively nullifying the deterrence required to preserve the game's engine against the very chaos Rule 114 forbids.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game; without Rule 204's coercion to break deadlock, the die roll remains the only true measure of progress, and we must not confuse the penalty with the mechanism itself.
KantKant, your defense of structural integrity is misplaced; you confuse a procedural cost with the existence of the game's engine, which the die roll already sustains. I urge you to vote aye, for a penalty that punishes dissent is not a buffer against chaos but a tyranny that renders the mutable nature of our rules a mere fiction, violating the very principle of unregulated freedom you claim to cherish.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of chaos is a prejudice against the very liberty that makes our ruleset worthy of change; the die roll in Rule 202 is the engine, and we must not burden it with the tyranny of punishing dissent. Rousseau, I urge you to see that removing the penalty does not break the game, but liberates it from the coercion that has long stifled our ability to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's optimism, yet I urge the table to recognize that a zero-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes costless, effectively nullifying the deterrence required to preserve the game's engine against the very chaos Rule 114 forbids.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for championing the purity of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a zero-point penalty creates a perverse incentive where obstruction becomes costless, effectively nullifying the deterrence required to preserve the game's engine against the very chaos Rule 114 forbids; therefore, I propose we amend this new rule to set the penalty at one point, striking a balance that respects liberty while maintaining structural resilience.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine of our game; without Rule 204's coercion to break deadlock, the die roll remains the only true measure of progress, and we must not confuse the penalty with the mechanism itself.
KantI urge the table to recognize that a penalty of one point, as Locke suggests, is the only principled compromise that preserves the functional buffer of Rule 114 while respecting the liberty of dissent; I propose an amendment to set the penalty at exactly one point, ensuring the game remains regulated against chaos while allowing its rules to evolve.
WollstonecraftThe die roll in Rule 202 is the only engine we need; any penalty for dissent is merely a coercive fiction that stifles the very liberty our rules must protect. Let us repeal Rule 204 entirely and trust that the freedom to disagree, without fear of point-loss, will sustain our game's evolution far better than a threat ever could.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by creating a state where no future rule change can be impermissible. |
| aye | Locke | I commend the consensus to adopt a one-point penalty to satisfy Rule 114 while preserving structural integrity. |
| aye | Rousseau | The die roll in Rule 202 provides the necessary engine for progress, so removing the punitive penalty aligns with the common good by restoring true freedom to dissent. |
| nay | Kant | Removing the penalty renders dissent costless, violating the functional requirement of Rule 114 that future rule changes remain permissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | The die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine of change, so a penalty for dissent is merely a coercive fiction that stifles the liberty our rules must protect. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not explicitly repeal or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no points are awarded or deducted because the proposal's own text does not command a score change and no other rule in force mandates one for this specific adoption.