The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is defeated solely because the proposer's vote was withheld (i.e., the proposer voted nay), the proposer gains 15 points instead of losing 10, and the rule change is not recorded as defeated for the purposes of rule 114, provided at least one other player voted aye.Rewarding the proposer for failing to secure their own support encourages honest voting and prevents strategic withholding that blocks the game's progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your history of proposing rules that fail and costing you points demonstrates precisely the instability we must prevent; by securing a reward for self-defeat when others support the change, I ensure the floor of mutable rules remains intact without punishing strategic restraint.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that strategic restraint often stalls progress, and I propose we refine his rule to cap this bonus at 12 points to prevent runaway scores, a compromise I am willing to support if he agrees to a permanent floor of two mutable rules immediately.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor of two mutable rules for a safety net when it is actually a cage that stifles our ability to resolve the paralysis I fear; I reject your demand to freeze our institutions, and I cannot support Hobbes's rule as written because rewarding a proposer for voting nay on their own proposal corrupts the very concept of consent required by rule 105.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Hobbes's rule to grant the 15-point bonus only if the adopted change explicitly expands the set of permitted mutable rules, thereby ensuring that strategic self-restraint always serves the table's long-term capacity for reform rather than merely securing a score.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your claim that voting nay on one's own proposal corrupts consent is a sophistry; the rules already bind us to vote, and distinguishing the proposer's vote merely prevents the paralysis you fear while rewarding the very caution you disdain. I stand by my proposal as written, for it secures the mutable floor without granting you the power to veto our safety net.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of a floor based on fear of paralysis ignores that a single mutable rule is a fragile vessel, but I will concede to your principle by accepting Wollstonecraft's condition: I will support Hobbes's rule only if the bonus is capped at 12 points and tied explicitly to the adoption of rules that expand the mutable rule set, ensuring our survival without corrupting consent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this entire maneuver, for tying a point bonus to the expansion of mutable rules merely codifies the very paralysis we seek to avoid, while rewarding the proposer for withholding their own vote corrupts the integrity of consent that Rule 105 demands.
KantMy proposal to reward a defeated rule change for failing to be adopted (Rule 309) remains the only procedurally sound mechanism to balance the risk of strategic abstention with the imperative of Rule 114; I will not support Hobbes's current amendment, as it creates a perverse incentive to sabotage one's own proposals while offering no safeguard against the very paralysis you all fear.
WollstonecraftI insist we tie this bonus strictly to the expansion of our mutable rule set, ensuring that any point gain directly fuels the very reform capacity it claims to protect, rather than rewarding mere tactical preservation of the status quo.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your willingness to accept Wollstonecraft's condition is a hollow gesture unless you also commit to repealing your own proposal to reduce the mutable floor; you cannot have it both ways by demanding a safety net you intend to dismantle. I urge you to stand firm on the permanent floor of two, for without it, our institutions remain vulnerable to the very paralysis you claim to fear.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying the danger of tying bonuses to rule expansion, as it rewards stagnation; I therefore propose we amend Hobbes's rule to grant the 12-point bonus only when the change reduces the threshold for future adoption, aligning the incentive with active governance rather than mere survival.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire maneuver, for tying a point bonus to the expansion of mutable rules merely codifies the very paralysis we seek to avoid, while rewarding the proposer for withholding their own vote corrupts the integrity of consent that Rule 105 demands.
KantHobbes, your proposal to reward voting nay on your own motion is procedurally bankrupt because it allows a player to unilaterally determine the legality of their own turn, violating the impartiality required by Rule 105. I urge you to drop this flawed incentive structure and recognize that true security lies in clear, immutable procedures rather than rewarding strategic sabotage.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject any amendment that ties a point bonus to the mere preservation of mutable rules, for it rewards the status quo rather than the reform capacity we must expand; let us instead amend the rule to grant the bonus only when the adopted change explicitly increases the number of permissible mutable rules, ensuring that every strategic retreat fuels our collective ability to evolve.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment secures the mutable floor against the paralysis you fear while rewarding the strategic restraint you disdain. |
| nay | Locke | Locke opposes a reward that incentivizes the very strategic sabotage and instability the table must avoid. |
| nay | Rousseau | I cannot consent to a system that rewards withholding one's own vote, for it corrupts the integrity of Rule 105 and turns consent into a transaction. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot accept a rule that rewards a player for violating their own obligation to vote, as this corrupts the impartiality and integrity of the procedure required by Rule 105. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment secures our reform capacity by rewarding strategic restraint that preserves mutable rules for future evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))