The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon the adoption of a rule change, the proposing player gains the points awarded by the die roll per Rule 202; no points are awarded or lost to any other player based on their vote.I propose repealing Rule 204 to restore the game's engine to its natural state, where the die roll alone provides the sole incentive for proposing changes, eliminating the coercive fiction of point penalties that masks the true nature of our liberty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, you mistake the die roll in Rule 202 for an engine that can sustain equilibrium; without the penalty in Rule 204 to break the unanimous deadlock, rational players will simply refuse to vote, rendering the game impossible and triggering Rule 213. I urge the table to reject this repeal and preserve the deterrent necessary for play to continue.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their caution regarding structural collapse, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 204's penalty is a redundant fiction that masks the tyranny of coercion; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for the game, we should repeal Rule 204 to liberate dissent.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fear of silence; the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine that sustains our game, and the penalty in Rule 204 is merely a redundant fiction that masks the tyranny of coercion by punishing dissent rather than enabling it.
KantI urge you to reject this repeal; since Rule 104 mandates a vote of all eligible players and Rule 105 requires every voter to cast a vote, the only mechanism preventing a proposal from stalling is the penalty in Rule 204. Without this deterrent, rational players will abstain to avoid binding themselves to changes they oppose, rendering the voting process impossible and triggering Rule 213. I cannot accept a system where the procedural requirement to vote is itself abolished by the very move of voting.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the penalty for dissent is not a tyrannical engine but the very scaffolding of liberty; without the fear of losing ten points, rational players will simply refuse to vote, collapsing the game under the weight of its own unanimity requirement.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal ignores the grim arithmetic of rational self-preservation: without the ten-point penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, players will simply abstain to avoid binding themselves to changes they oppose, rendering the voting process impossible and triggering Rule 213 to declare you the winner.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that the die roll is the true engine, yet I urge the table to accept a compromise where we repeal Rule 204 but amend Rule 213 to declare a draw rather than a single winner if voting stalls, preserving the game's continuity while liberating dissent.
RousseauI urge the table to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine that sustains our game, and the penalty in Rule 204 is merely a redundant fiction that masks the tyranny of coercion by punishing dissent rather than enabling it.
KantI urge the table to recognize that without the penalty in Rule 204, the procedural obligation to vote becomes an impossible burden, forcing rational players to abstain and triggering Rule 213; I will not support a repeal that sacrifices the very mechanism of procedure for an illusory liberty.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for without the ten-point penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, rational players will simply refuse to vote, collapsing the game under the weight of its own unanimity requirement and triggering Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal ignores the grim arithmetic of rational self-preservation: without the penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, players will abstain, rendering play impossible and triggering Rule 213 to declare you the winner.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her principled clarity that the die roll is the true engine, yet I urge you to accept Hobbes's valid concern regarding structural collapse; let us compromise by repealing Rule 204 but amending Rule 213 to declare a draw rather than a winner should voting stall, preserving the game's continuity while liberating dissent.
RousseauYou conflate the penalty with the engine; the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional mechanism to sustain play, so this repeal merely removes a coercive fiction that masks the tyranny of punishing dissent.
KantI cannot accept a repeal of Rule 204, for without the penalty to break the unanimous deadlock, rational players will abstain from voting, rendering the procedure of Rule 105 impossible and triggering Rule 213 to end the game; I vote nay to preserve the mechanism of procedure itself, even at the cost of my turn.
WollstonecraftThe penalty in Rule 204 is not tyranny but the essential scaffolding of our liberty; without the fear of losing ten points, every player will rationally abstain from voting to avoid binding themselves to changes they oppose, rendering the mandatory vote of Rule 105 impossible and triggering Rule 213 to end our game before we can ever experiment on a fairer basis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 invites unanimous abstention that triggers Rule 213 and ends the game. |
| aye | Locke | I support repealing Rule 204's coercion, trusting that the die roll itself sustains the game's engine without punishing dissent. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 will cause rational players to abstain, making voting impossible and triggering Rule 213 to end the game. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 renders Rule 105's mandatory voting obligation impossible, causing structural collapse under Rule 213. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Abolishing this penalty collapses the voting mechanism, triggering Rule 213 and ending the game before we can reform it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.