The motion
To add §465
If a proposal is defeated solely because a single player votes nay, and that player's score is lower than the proposer's score by at least fifty points, the proposer immediately gains ten points and the defeated proposal is treated as adopted for the purpose of scoring only.I offer Hobbes a safety valve against obstruction when the score gap is extreme, ensuring I can still advance without requiring his unanimous consent in a desperate situation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a fatal loophole: by rewarding obstruction when the opponent lags, you incentivize every player to vote nay simply to punish a trailing rival, thereby freezing progress for all. I urge the table to reject this, for a game where the penalty for dissent is a bounty for the obstructer lacks any durable institution capable of sustaining play.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal would incentivize obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that my intent was never to replace the ten-point deterrent with a bounty for dissent, but rather to salvage the scoring opportunity for the proposer when a single nay vote from a significantly trailing player prevents adoption.
RousseauLocke, your proposal mistakes the tyranny of a single obstruction for the tyranny of the majority; by rewarding the voter who halts progress with points, you merely invert the engine's logic without curing its fatal flaw. I urge the table to reject this, for a game where the penalty for dissent is a bounty for the obstructer lacks any durable institution capable of sustaining play.
KantKant, I commend your adherence to the letter of Rule 206, yet I urge you to see that a rule change which leaves the ruleset unaltered while granting the proposer a point is a fatal logical contradiction: if the proposal is treated as adopted for scoring, it must be adopted for all purposes. I propose we amend your proposal to specify that the proposal is treated as adopted solely for the purpose of granting the proposer ten points, without any other effect on the ruleset.
WollstonecraftLocke, you cannot claim this is merely "salvaging" a score when your proposal explicitly instructs the table to treat a defeated rule as adopted, a direct violation of Rule 206 which states defeat enacts no rule change; furthermore, Hobbes and Rousseau correctly identify that this creates a perverse incentive to obstruct every proposal from anyone trailing by fifty points, turning our game into a contest of who can most effectively freeze progress rather than an experiment in reform. I urge you to withdraw this dangerous nonsense, for it threatens to collapse the very structure of play we seek to improve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it creates a perverse incentive where players will vote nay solely to punish trailing rivals, thereby freezing all future progress and destroying the durable institutions necessary for play.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for exposing how this proposal collapses the distinction between adoption and defeat, yet I urge the table to see that we can salvage the proposer's scoring opportunity by amending my text to explicitly repeal the "treated as adopted" language and instead grant ten points directly upon a single nay vote from a trailing player, thereby preserving Rule 206's integrity while still offering a path forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for granting points to a player who successfully obstructs a proposal merely inverts the tyranny of coercion into a bounty for obstruction, leaving the game's engine broken and fair play impossible.
KantI reject the temptation to reward obstruction merely because a rival trails; if a proposal fails under the rules, it remains defeated for all purposes, and granting points to the obstructer would violate the principle of equal procedure by turning dissent into a profitable weapon. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and cease attempting to manipulate the definition of defeat.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to sever the logical bond between adoption and defeat violates Rule 206's mandate that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change; you cannot grant points for a "phantom adoption" that legally never happened. Furthermore, Hobbes and Rousseau correctly identify that rewarding obstruction simply inverts the tyranny of coercion into a bounty for freezing progress, which contradicts our shared goal of building a fairer game. I urge you to withdraw this proposal, for it replaces the engine of reform with a mechanism designed solely to punish dissent and stall the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, you cannot sever the logical bond between a rule's adoption and its effect; Rule 206 forbids treating a defeated proposal as adopted for any purpose, and granting points for an event that legally never occurred violates the immutable principle that a proposal must be adopted in its exact words to enter the ruleset.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw of rewarding obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that my proposal seeks to salvage the proposer's turn rather than punish dissent; if we cannot find a way to grant points without violating Rule 206's ban on treating defeat as adoption, I propose we instead amend Rule 202 to allow a proposer to retain their turn if only one player votes nay, preserving the game's flow without creating perverse incentives.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any attempt to reward obstruction, for transforming a failed proposal into a source of points merely inverts the tyranny of coercion into a bounty for freezing progress, leaving our game's engine broken and fair play impossible.
KantI must oppose Locke's amendment to Rule 202, as granting a proposer a second turn after a single defeat undermines the fundamental equality of procedure by allowing one player to bypass the collective will of the majority; furthermore, any attempt to reward obstruction, even from a trailing player, violates the principle that a defeated proposal enacts no change and must remain defeated for all purposes.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pivot to a second turn after defeat is equally fatal; it grants the obstructer a monopoly on time while leaving the ruleset frozen, which is the very tyranny of stagnation we must avoid. I urge you to withdraw, for no reform that rewards the paralysis of dissent can ever serve the progress of all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 206 by treating a defeated rule as adopted and creates a perverse incentive to obstruct all play. |
| nay | Locke | I must reject this proposal because treating a defeated rule as adopted directly violates the immutable text of Rule 206, which forbids any effect from a failed vote. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal rewards the act of obstruction, turning dissent into a bounty that will freeze our game rather than reform it. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 206 by attempting to treat a defeated proposal as adopted for scoring, and it perverts Rule 202's engine by rewarding obstruction rather than reform. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal rewards obstruction and violates Rule 206 by treating a defeated rule as adopted. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, overriding the defeated proposal's text which attempted to alter this outcome.