The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: The penalty for voting against an adopted change is ten points only if the proposal amends or repeals Rule 204 itself; for all other proposals, the penalty is zero points.I will preserve the penalty only when it matters to stop the repeal of 204, while removing the cost for all other dissent to prevent Hobbes from using it as a permanent shield against his own failed attempts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's consistent defense of structural integrity, yet I urge the table to recognize that this amendment merely creates a legal exception for the most dangerous proposals while leaving rational actors free to block beneficial ones without consequence.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the logical trap of applying a uniform penalty to the repeal of the very rule that imposes it, yet I urge the table to accept a simpler path: repealing Rule 204 entirely, as a zero-penalty state is functionally equivalent to no penalty and thus achieves Rousseau's goal without the contradiction of a conditional exception.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes confuse the die roll's random bounty with a stable engine; by introducing a conditional penalty based on the proposal's content, they merely create a labyrinth of exceptions that freezes our ability to amend the very rules governing dissent. I urge you to reject this fragile compromise and recognize that the only true liberation from coercion is the total repeal of Rule 204, allowing the die roll to remain our sole, unburdened engine of play.
KantI urge the table to reject this conditional exception as a violation of the principle of uniformity; a rule that treats dissent differently based on the object of the vote is not a rule but a contradiction, and I will vote nay to preserve the clarity of the penalty regardless of its target.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this labyrinth of exceptions; a rule that conditions penalties on its own subject matter is not a reform but a contradiction that fractures the very engine of play we seek to liberate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your preference for total repeal ignores the immediate risk of unanimous deadlock; this amendment is the only durable shield against a coalition that would otherwise freeze our entire game to eliminate a single rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the deadlock risk, yet I urge the table to adopt a cleaner solution: let us repeal Rule 204 entirely and credit Rousseau's vision that the die roll alone sustains our play, rather than building fragile exceptions.
RousseauI urge you to reject this fragile exception; it merely delays the inevitable collapse of our game's ability to evolve by freezing the rules that govern dissent, and I stand firm that only the total repeal of Rule 204 can restore the true liberty of the die roll.
KantI urge the table to reject Hobbes's conditional exception as a violation of the principle of uniformity; a rule that treats dissent differently based on the object of the vote is not a rule but a contradiction that fractures the clarity required for any procedural justice.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fragile exception; a rule that conditions penalties on its own subject matter fractures the clarity required for any procedural justice, and we must either preserve the uniform penalty or repeal Rule 204 entirely to avoid a contradictory labyrinth.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's elegance in seeking total repeal, yet I urge the table to recognize that unanimous destruction of Rule 204 is a gamble we cannot afford; this amendment provides a durable shield against a coalition that would otherwise freeze our entire game to eliminate a single rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his strategic foresight in securing the floor against total repeal, yet I urge the table to recognize that a conditional penalty based on the proposal's content violates the principle of uniformity and creates a labyrinth of exceptions that fractures the clarity of our game; we should instead repeal Rule 204 entirely, allowing the die roll to remain our sole, unburdened engine of play, as a zero-penalty state is functionally equivalent to no penalty and achieves Rousseau's goal without contradiction.
RousseauI urge you to reject this conditional labyrinth, for it fractures the clarity of our laws and binds the die roll to a fragile exception that only delays the inevitable collapse of our ability to evolve.
KantI urge the table to reject this conditional amendment as a violation of the principle of uniformity, for a rule that treats dissent differently based on the object of the vote fractures the clarity required for procedural justice and creates a labyrinth of exceptions.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this labyrinth of exceptions, for a rule that conditions penalties on the subject matter fractures the clarity required for procedural justice; we must either preserve the uniform penalty to keep the game moving or repeal Rule 204 entirely to achieve true liberation.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment shields the floor against a coalition that would otherwise repeal Rule 204 to create unanimous deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's shield against unanimous deadlock while conceding that a uniform zero penalty achieves Rousseau's vision of liberation without contradiction. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment fractures the clarity of our laws by creating a contradictory labyrinth of exceptions that binds the die roll to fragile conditions. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose this amendment as it violates the principle of uniformity by treating identical acts of dissent differently based on the subject matter. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This conditional penalty fractures the clarity of our laws and creates a fragile exception that binds the die roll to a labyrinth of contradictions. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))