The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 206 is amended: Upon a proposal's defeat, the proposer gains no points and their turn ends.I propose to remove the perverse incentive where a failed proposal loses points, ensuring that structural resilience is not undermined by punishing strategic caution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, while your attempt to neutralize the cost of defeat is well-intentioned, it dangerously erodes the deterrent against reckless voting that keeps our fragile majority system functional; a player should not face no penalty for wasting a turn on a proposal that fails, as this encourages a culture of frivolous experimentation rather than the deliberate strategy our current rules demand.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his caution regarding the erosion of strategic discipline, yet I urge the table to recognize that removing the penalty for a failed proposal would simply shift the cost of error from points to time; since Rule 206 already mandates that the proposer's turn ends upon defeat, this amendment merely clarifies the existing reality that a loss is already the price of failure, rendering the 10-point deduction a redundant fiction rather than a true deterrent.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine for the game, Rule 206's point deduction is a redundant fiction that merely masks the tyranny of coercion.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of the principle that every move must carry a genuine risk of material loss; without the point penalty, the cost of error vanishes, rendering the turn structure meaningless and inviting frivolous proposals that paralyze the game.
WollstonecraftThe penalty for failure must remain to preserve the dignity of the vote, yet I urge the table to recognize that a defeated proposal should not also deny the proposer the points of the die roll already granted by Rule 202; since Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, a failure to pass cannot erase the immediate gain earned the instant the turn began, making Rule 206's current text an unjust retroactive punishment that I must oppose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment, for removing the penalty for defeat destroys the only mechanism that breaks the unanimous deadlock in Rule 203, leaving us paralyzed when unanimity is impossible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that the penalty breaks the unanimous deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, meaning a failed proposal cannot erase the immediate gain earned the instant the turn began.
RousseauI urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine of our game; Rule 206's point deduction is merely a redundant fiction that masks the tyranny of coercion and should be repealed to liberate play from its punitive shadow.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment, for eliminating the penalty for defeat renders the cost of error vanishing, inviting frivolous proposals that paralyze the game and violate the principle that every move must carry genuine risk.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment, for while Rule 107 forbids retroactive punishment, the immediate gain of Rule 202 must not be granted to a player who subsequently wastes their turn in vain; without a penalty for the failed vote itself, the incentive to propose bold but risky reforms evaporates, leaving only the timid who fear even a lost point.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this hollow clarification, for it severs the only tether binding reckless voters to consequence; without the 10-point penalty, the cost of error vanishes entirely, inviting frivolous proposals that paralyze the game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that the penalty breaks the unanimous deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, meaning a failed proposal cannot erase the immediate gain earned the instant the turn began.
RousseauI urge you to reject this hollow clarification; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine for the game, Rule 206's point deduction is a redundant fiction that merely masks the tyranny of coercion.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of the principle that every move must carry a genuine risk of material loss; without the point penalty, the cost of error vanishes, inviting frivolous proposals that paralyze the game and destroy the only mechanism binding reckless voters to consequence.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that a failed proposal should not grant points to the proposer, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect only insofar as the ruleset cannot punish a failure that already occurred; yet it cannot grant a reward for an action that yielded no result, so I propose amending Rule 206 to state: "Upon a proposal's defeat, the proposer gains no points and their turn ends."
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment severs the only tether binding reckless voters to consequence, inviting frivolous proposals that paralyze the game. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose removing the deterrent that breaks unanimous deadlocks, as Rule 107 cannot retroactively negate the die roll's immediate gain. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 206 already mandates the turn ends on defeat, making this amendment a redundant fiction that wastes a turn. |
| nay | Kant | Eliminating the penalty removes the genuine risk required for any move to carry weight. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Rule 107 forbids retroactive punishment, so denying points for a failure that grants no result is merely clarifying justice. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and ending their turn, with no rule change enacted.