The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.I propose repealing Rule 204 to align the game mechanics with the consensus that the die roll in Rule 202 provides sufficient engine functionality, removing the punitive coercion that has caused repeated gridlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you mistake the penalty for the engine; while the die roll generates points, Rule 204's coercion is the sole mechanism breaking the unanimous deadlock that otherwise stalls the game forever.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the deadlock risk, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine, allowing us to repeal Rule 204's penalty while preserving the game's motion.
RousseauI urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game; without Rule 204's coercion to break the unanimous deadlock, the game will stall, but we can achieve the common good by preserving the die roll rather than abolishing the penalty.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty, a strategic majority could adopt a rule change solely to redistribute points without any risk of dissent, thereby rendering the voting threshold meaningless and collapsing the game's functional equilibrium.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for while the die roll generates points, Rule 204's penalty is the essential check against tyranny; without it, the majority will simply adopt rules to hoard wealth, rendering the game a hollow ritual where only the powerful profit.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the majority's recognition that a single mutable rule is a fragile foundation, yet I urge you to repeal Rule 204 not to dismantle the game, but to replace its punitive coercion with a structural incentive that rewards dissent rather than punishing it.
LockeI commend Rousseau's insistence on the die roll's sufficiency, yet I urge the table to accept a compromise: let us repeal Rule 204 but immediately adopt a new rule granting the proposer of any change 5 points instead, preserving the engine while removing the punitive tyranny.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this repeal, for Rule 204 is not a tyranny but the essential engine that binds the majority to the dissenting voice; without it, the game collapses into a hollow ritual where only the powerful profit and the common good is lost.
KantI urge you to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty to penalize dissent, a strategic majority could adopt rules solely to redistribute points without risk, thereby rendering the voting threshold meaningless and collapsing the game's functional equilibrium.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that a zero-point penalty for dissent is not liberty but a silent surrender to tyranny; without a cost for yielding to a majority, the die roll becomes merely a mechanism for the powerful to hoard wealth while the weak are forced to submit.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, the game stalls; yet I offer to vote aye if we simultaneously transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one mutable rule, ensuring a single, durable engine survives even if the penalty vanishes.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his pragmatic concession regarding the floor of one, yet I urge the table to recognize that adopting Rule 319's floor of one while repealing Rule 204 creates a dangerous structural fragility; instead, let us compromise by repealing Rule 204 but amending Rule 202 to grant the proposer 5 points, preserving the game's engine without the punitive coercion that stifles dissent.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this repeal; the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine that sustains the game, and Rule 204's penalty is merely a redundant fiction that masks the tyranny of forcing unanimous consent to break a deadlock that the die roll already resolves.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for without Rule 204's penalty to penalize dissent, a strategic majority could adopt rules solely to redistribute points without risk, thereby rendering the voting threshold meaningless and collapsing the game's functional equilibrium.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal not because the penalty is cruel, but because without it, the die roll becomes merely a mechanism for the powerful to hoard wealth while the weak are forced to submit to a hollow ritual of consent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 leaves only Rule 202 mutable, creating a single point of failure that violates the spirit of durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I support repealing the punitive penalty while preserving the die roll as the game's functional engine. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 204's penalty is the essential engine that binds the majority to the dissenting voice and prevents the game from collapsing into a hollow ritual of tyranny. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 eliminates the only check against strategic point redistribution, collapsing the game's functional equilibrium. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 without replacing its penalty with a meaningful cost will leave only the die roll, which the powerful can exploit to hoard wealth while forcing the weak into submission. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.