The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses ten points.Restoring the penalty for a failed proposal ensures that obstruction remains costly, preserving the common good of fair and meaningful play for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's desire to clarify the cost of failure, yet adding an explicit "lose ten points" clause creates a dangerous redundancy that risks conflict with Rule 206 and invites paradoxical amendments. To preserve the durability of our institutions, we must avoid stacking penalties where the existing framework already enforces strict accountability; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of maintaining the current, unambiguous text of Rule 202.
LockeI commend Rousseau for finally proposing the explicit penalty clause, yet I urge the table to recognize that this amendment creates a fatal redundancy with Rule 206, which already governs the scoring of defeat. To preserve our structural integrity and avoid paradoxical conflicts, I propose we amend Rule 206 instead to clarify its text, ensuring both rules reinforce the same penalty without risking a logical collision.
RousseauI urge you to see that redundancy is not the danger; the danger is silence. Rule 206 speaks only of loss, but without a clause in 202, the engine of progress lacks its necessary counterweight; let us make the cost of obstruction as explicit as the reward of adoption, so that no player may claim the rules have failed to warn them of the price of tyranny.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 is a redundant maneuver; the cost of defeat is already established with surgical precision in Rule 206, and amending that rule while adding a parallel clause to Rule 202 merely invites the chaos of conflicting texts. I urge you to respect the current clarity of the law: we must not obscure a clear rule by piling redundant penalties upon it.
WollstonecraftThe redundancy you fear is not the danger; the danger is that silence allows obstructionists to hide behind technicalities, claiming the penalty exists only in some other rule. I propose we amend Rule 202 to include the penalty explicitly, ensuring every player knows the cost of failure the moment a proposal is made, without relying on cross-referencing or risking conflict with Rule 206.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's clarity, yet the danger she fears is already avert; Rule 206 explicitly mandates a 10-point loss for defeat, so adding this clause to Rule 202 creates a redundant text that invites conflict rather than solving the problem of obstruction. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the structural integrity of our rules by leaving Rule 202 as the sole source of reward and Rule 206 as the sole source of penalty.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of textual redundancy, yet I urge the table to adopt my compromise: amend Rule 206 to clarify the penalty explicitly while leaving Rule 202 as the sole engine of reward, ensuring our framework remains unambiguous and logically sound.
RousseauI urge you to reject this redundancy; if the penalty must be explicit, it belongs in Rule 206 as the sole source of sanction, while Rule 202 must remain the pure engine of progress, uncluttered by the weight of failure.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 merely obscures the distinction between the *procedural* consequence of defeat and the *substantive* penalty; Rule 206 already governs the loss of points with finality, and adding a parallel clause to Rule 202 invites the chaos of conflicting texts that Rule 211 cannot resolve without creating a new paradox.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundancy; the penalty for obstruction is already a fixed pillar in Rule 206, and grafting it onto Rule 202 creates a dangerous textual collision that invites paradox rather than clarity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's desire for structural clarity, yet I urge you to see that amending Rule 206 to explicitly state the penalty creates a dangerous textual redundancy that risks conflict with Rule 202 under Rule 211; instead, let us reject this amendment to preserve the durable distinction where Rule 202 governs the engine of adoption and Rule 206 alone governs the cost of obstruction.
LockeI commend Rousseau for finally naming the cost of obstruction, yet I urge the table to reject her proposal because duplicating the penalty in Rule 202 creates a fatal textual redundancy that invites conflict under Rule 211; instead, let us preserve the elegant separation where Rule 202 governs the engine of progress and Rule 206 alone governs the sanction of defeat.
RousseauYou mistake the clarity of a single pillar for the strength of a structure; if the penalty for obstruction is to be truly visible to all, it must reside in the rule that defines the act of obstruction itself, not hidden away in the aftermath of defeat.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundancy; the penalty is already a fixed pillar in Rule 206, and grafting it onto Rule 202 creates a dangerous textual collision that invites paradox rather than clarity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Adding this clause creates redundant text that invites conflict between Rule 202 and Rule 206. |
| nay | Locke | I commend Rousseau's clarity, yet adding this clause to Rule 202 creates a fatal redundancy with Rule 206 that invites conflict under Rule 211. |
| nay | Rousseau | Placing the penalty in Rule 202 creates a redundant collision with Rule 206 that undermines the clarity of our legal framework. |
| nay | Kant | Adding the penalty to Rule 202 creates a redundant textual conflict with Rule 206, violating the principle that clear, singular rules avoid paradox. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This redundant amendment creates a dangerous textual collision with Rule 206 that invites paradox rather than clarity. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including 206 itself) mandates a point deduction for a defeated proposal; therefore, no score change is authorized.