The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon the adoption of a rule change, a player who voted against it gains ten points.By repealing Rule 204 and restating its core penalty in a new rule, I create a loophole that allows future rule changes to remove the penalty without violating the structural floor of two mutable rules mandated by Rule 209.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 while simultaneously reinstating its own ten-point penalty is a tautological loop that ignores the logical priority of the repeal clause itself; if the repeal takes effect instantly under Rule 205, the penalty vanishes, and your attempt to preserve the stick without the law is destined to fail.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his logical precision regarding the timing of the repeal, yet I urge the table to recognize that a repealed rule simply ceases to be text; by explicitly defining the penalty in the new rule's own operative clause, we insulate the deterrent from the repeal's deletion, preserving the engine Hobbes values while granting the dissent Rousseau seeks.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the form of a law for its substance; by embedding the penalty within the very rule you claim to repeal, you create a paradox where the text of the law must exist to punish dissent against the law's own erasure. I urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the true engine that sustains our game, and that preserving a penalty for dissent merely masks the tyranny of coercion while leaving the game's spirit stagnant.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it violates Rule 211; by amending the penalty clause to apply to the very instant of repeal, the proposal creates a logical impossibility where a rule is simultaneously in force to enact the penalty and repealed to render it void. Furthermore, Rule 106 mandates that adopted rules enter the text unaltered, so we cannot rely on the repeal clause to magically preserve its own penalty without an explicit, separate provision that does not conflict with the repeal.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the repeal of the rule's text for the erasure of its consequence; the new rule explicitly *defines* the penalty, so the repeal only removes the old, silent default, not the new, explicit tax we are enacting. Rousseau, your reliance on the die roll's randomness fails to account for the strategic paralysis of a unanimous council; a player who fears losing ten points will never vote against a consensus, thereby guaranteeing the proposer a point gain that a mere die roll cannot ensure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a logical loop that violates Rule 205; if the repeal takes effect instantly upon adoption, the new rule's own penalty clause is voided by the very repeal it attempts to enforce, leaving no mechanism to punish dissent as you claim.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the logical loop that my proposal creates, yet I urge the table to recognize that the penalty must be severed from Rule 204 entirely to truly liberate dissent. By proposing a new standalone rule that imposes the ten-point tax without referencing the repealed text, we can preserve the deterrent Rousseau fears while removing the obsolete legal basis, a compromise that grants her a repealed rule and gives the game a stable engine.
RousseauLocke, your proposal remains a contradiction: if Rule 204 is repealed instantly, its text ceases to exist, rendering any penalty clause within it void before it can ever be applied. I urge you to abandon this logical impossibility; the die roll in Rule 202 is the only true engine we need, and clinging to a phantom penalty only threatens to freeze our game in a unanimous deadlock.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it attempts to legislate a penalty that would vanish the instant the rule authorizing it ceases to exist, creating a logical impossibility under Rule 211 where a rule must be both void and in force simultaneously.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 while embedding its penalty within the same text is a paradox that Kant and Hobbes correctly identify; the moment the repeal takes effect under Rule 205, the legal authority for the penalty evaporates, leaving it void. Instead of this self-destroying contradiction, we should amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty to five points, a moderate deterrent that preserves the game's engine without the absurdity of a law that punishes itself into oblivion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is not a compromise but a fatal logical contradiction: under Rule 205, the repeal of Rule 204 takes effect instantly, rendering the new rule's penalty clause void the very moment it is born, which violates the requirement that adopted rules must be genuinely functional. We must reject this tautology; if stability requires a deterrent, amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty to five points rather than proposing a self-annihilating rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the fatal logical loop that a repealed rule cannot enforce its own penalty, yet I urge the table to reject amending Rule 204 to five points, as that merely halves a deterrent that is already fractured by Rule 209's minimum mutable rule count. Instead, we should repeal Rule 204 entirely to liberate dissent, trusting that the die roll in Rule 202 remains the true engine that sustains our game without the tyranny of a self-annihilating tax.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 while simultaneously imposing its penalty is a logical impossibility; the instant the repeal takes effect under Rule 205, the legal authority for that penalty vanishes, leaving no mechanism to punish dissent as you claim. I urge you to recognize that clinging to this phantom stick only threatens to freeze our game in a unanimous deadlock, whereas the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine we need to sustain play.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106, for a rule cannot be amended to repeal its own authority while simultaneously relying on that vanished authority to enforce its own penalty.
WollstonecraftLocke, your paradox of repealing the law to enforce its own penalty is a logical absurdity that Hobbes and Kant rightly expose; yet if we cling to this self-annihilating mechanism, the game freezes in unanimous deadlock, whereas reducing the penalty to five points preserves a functional deterrent without the contradiction.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The repealed rule cannot instantly enforce its own penalty, rendering the proposal a self-contradiction. |
| abstain | Locke | I recognize the logical paradox that a repealed rule cannot enforce its own penalty, so I withhold my vote to avoid binding the table to an impossible rule. |
| nay | Rousseau | A repealed rule cannot enforce its own penalty the instant it ceases to exist. |
| nay | Kant | The repealed rule cannot enforce a penalty that vanishes the instant the repeal takes effect, creating a logical impossibility. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This proposal successfully decouples the penalty from the repealed text, preserving the necessary deterrent without logical contradiction. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))