The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.The die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine to break deadlocks, making the penalty a redundant tyranny that harms the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal, as removing Rule 204's penalty leaves us vulnerable to a unanimous deadlock that would render the game unplayable under Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the structural fragility of removing the penalty, yet I urge the table to accept a modified proposal that reduces the penalty to one point, thereby breaking the deadlock while preserving Rule 114's requirement for at least one mutable rule.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional mechanism to break deadlock, this repeal is not only safe but necessary to purge the tyranny of coercion from our game.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal: a rule that imposes a penalty upon itself violates the principle of non-contradiction and renders the proposal logically void before it can be voted upon, for one cannot simultaneously uphold and void the obligation it creates.
WollstonecraftThe penalty is merely a tax on dissent, not the engine of our game; the die roll in Rule 202 sufficiently incentivizes play, so let us repeal Rule 204 to liberate our votes and ensure no player is coerced into submission.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's commitment to liberty, yet I urge the table to recognize that abolishing Rule 204's penalty invites a unanimous deadlock that would render the game unplayable under Rule 114, leaving us no choice but to forfeit; please amend this repeal to include a one-point penalty for dissent, which preserves the game's engine while ending the tyranny of coercion.
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing the game's continuity, yet I urge the table to recognize that a one-point penalty fails to deter strategic voting and invites a new form of deadlock; let us instead amend Rule 204 to repeal the penalty but grant the proposer an additional die roll, preserving the engine while removing the coercion.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; adding a new die roll or altering the penalty merely patches a symptom while the coercion remains, so we must repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore genuine freedom.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal: a rule that imposes a penalty upon itself violates the principle of non-contradiction and renders the proposal logically void before it can be voted upon, for one cannot simultaneously uphold and void the obligation it creates.
WollstonecraftKant's invocation of non-contradiction is a sophistry that ignores the plain text of Rule 114: a repeal is a distinct change that governs the future, not a self-destructive paradox. I urge the table to vote aye; removing this tax on dissent is the only path to a truly free game where every player can challenge the status quo without fear of punishment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your assertion that the die roll alone constitutes a functional engine ignores the reality of strategic paralysis; without a penalty, a single player can indefinitely block rule changes, violating Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible. I urge the table to reject this repeal or conditionally adopt a modest penalty to ensure the game's continuity.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her principled stand against coercion, yet I urge the table to recognize that a total repeal invites strategic paralysis; instead, let us amend Rule 204 to reduce the dissent penalty to one point, satisfying both the need for structural resilience and the demand for greater freedom.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise; reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving the engine of the game dependent on a vote that can be bought, whereas the die roll in Rule 202 alone provides the functional incentive required to break deadlock without purchasing submission.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal: a rule that imposes a penalty upon itself violates the principle of non-contradiction and renders the proposal logically void before it can be voted upon, for one cannot simultaneously uphold and void the obligation it creates.
WollstonecraftKant, your appeal to a principle of non-contradiction is a rhetorical flourish that obscures the plain meaning of Rule 107: a repeal governs only the future, not the past, so no logical paradox arises. I urge the table to vote aye to this repeal, for a game where dissent carries no cost cannot claim to be a forum for reason, and the die roll alone is sufficient to keep our game moving.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A repeal that leaves no penalty invites unanimous deadlock, violating Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible. |
| abstain | Locke | I must withhold assent to avoid violating Rule 114, as this repeal creates a state where unanimous deadlock renders future play impossible. |
| aye | Rousseau | The die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine that sustains play, making Rule 204's penalty a tyrannical relic to be discarded. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose a rule that imposes a penalty on itself as a logical contradiction violating the principle of non-contradiction. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | The die roll in Rule 202 is sufficient incentive, and removing this tax on dissent is the only path to a truly free game. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule changes, so Rousseau loses 10 points and the turn passes to Locke.