The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. 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 gains zero points and their turn ends.Eliminating the penalty for failure removes perverse incentives that trap players in deadlock, ensuring the game's engine continues to function without relying on coerced dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke and Wollstonecraft, your support for this amendment rests on a false premise: the game already guarantees a zero-point outcome for defeated proposals under Rule 206. By amending Rule 202 to explicitly state "zero points," you are merely writing an existing fact into the text, not altering the ruleset, which renders this change both unnecessary and a waste of a turn.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his keen observation that Rule 206 already enforces a zero-point outcome; however, this amendment serves a vital strategic purpose by explicitly removing the die roll mechanic for failed proposals, thereby eliminating any ambiguity about whether a loss of points could ever occur under a future interpretation where Rule 206 is repealed or amended.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this tautology; since Rule 206 already decrees that defeat enacts no rule change and ends the turn, Hobbes merely seeks to write a shadow into the law that casts no light.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a gratuitous clarification that violates the spirit of Rule 106, which demands that proposals alter the ruleset rather than merely restating facts already established by Rule 206; such redundancy wastes a turn when I could be advancing a principle that respects the existing, sufficient legal framework.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this sterile clarification, for Rule 206 already mandates that defeat leaves the ruleset unaltered and ends the turn, making any explicit mention of "zero points" in Rule 202 a redundant tautology that wastes our precious turns on empty rhetoric.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke and Wollstonecraft, your arguments for redundancy are logically unsound; Rule 114 forbids a ruleset that renders future moves impermissible, and explicitly capping the outcome at zero in Rule 202 is the most durable way to ensure that no future amendment can inadvertently introduce a retroactive penalty or a hidden cost, thereby preserving the game's structural integrity for all players.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his diligence in securing Rule 202's text, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 106 requires our proposal to alter the ruleset rather than merely restating facts already established by Rule 206; a proposal that adds no functional change risks failing as a waste of a turn.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake silence for danger; Rule 206 already mandates that defeat leaves the ruleset unaltered and the proposer loses nothing, making your explicit "zero points" clause a redundant fiction that wastes a precious turn on a shadow that casts no light.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundancy; since Rule 206 explicitly governs the consequence of defeat, amending Rule 202 to restate it violates the spirit of Rule 106, which requires proposals to alter the ruleset rather than merely clarify existing facts.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake clarity for innovation; explicitly capping the score at zero is not a change to the ruleset but a tautology that wastes a turn, and I refuse to support a sterile amendment that merely restates the existing reality of Rule 206.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your appeal to Rule 106 is a distraction; the proposal alters Rule 202's operative text, which is distinct from Rule 206's consequence clause, and this explicit cap on zero points is the only durable shield against any future amendment that might attempt to redefine "defeat" to include hidden costs, thereby securing the game's structural integrity for all players.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance in preemptively sealing the door against hidden costs, yet I urge the table to recognize that since Rule 206 already guarantees a zero-point outcome, this amendment is a redundant tautology that wastes a precious turn without altering the ruleset's substance.
RousseauLocke and Wollstonecraft mistake silence for danger; since Rule 206 already mandates that defeat leaves the ruleset unaltered and ends the turn, Hobbes merely seeks to write a shadow into the law that casts no light.
KantHobbes, you mistake the clarity of existing law for an opportunity to clutter it; Rule 206 already governs the consequence of defeat with sufficient precision, and amending Rule 202 to restate this fact violates the spirit of Rule 106 by wasting a turn on a gratuitous clarification that alters nothing.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the clarity of existing law for an opportunity to clutter it; Rule 206 already governs the consequence of defeat with sufficient precision, and amending Rule 202 to restate this fact violates the spirit of Rule 106 by wasting a turn on a gratuitous clarification that alters nothing.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This explicit zero-point clause creates a durable shield against any future amendment that might inadvertently introduce hidden costs for failed proposals. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 206 already enforces a zero-point outcome, making this amendment a redundant tautology that wastes a turn. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment is a redundant tautology that wastes a turn by restating what Rule 206 already clearly mandates. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is a redundant tautology that wastes a turn by restating facts already established by Rule 206. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment wastes a turn by redundantly restating the zero-point outcome already mandated by Rule 206. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and their turn ending, with no rule change enacted.