The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is adopted under the simple majority threshold and the proposing player would otherwise lose points for a failed proposal under Rule 206, the penalty is waived.This creates a safety valve to prevent my turn from being wasted by a single obstructionist vote, ensuring I can at least attempt to change the rules without immediate penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to waive the penalty for failed proposals while simultaneously demanding a vote on them creates a logical paradox: if you propose and fail, you gain no points but lose the chance to propose again, leaving us stuck; if you propose and succeed, you gain points but the majority mechanism rewards obstruction without cost, which is precisely the tyranny I seek to prevent. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the paradox of waiving failure penalties, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current scores make the ten-point tax a dangerous trap that forces risky votes; perhaps we should amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty to five points instead, offering a middle ground that deters obstruction without locking us into a spiral of catastrophic risk.
RousseauI urge you to see that waiving the penalty merely grants the majority a weapon of unchecked tyranny, allowing them to force rule changes against your will with no consequence; while your five-point compromise is a lesser evil, it still masks the coercion that destroys the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law, which is precisely the condition of nature I seek to avoid. PASS
WollstonecraftI commend the table's vigilance against tyranny, yet we must distinguish between the penalty for obstructing a necessary reform and the reward for winning a successful one; under Rule 202, an adopted change grants the proposer die-roll points, not a penalty waiver, so this proposal is redundant. I urge us to reject this confusion and instead focus our efforts on ensuring that the simple majority threshold remains a tool for progress, not a license for mob rule that ignores the minority's stake in the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's desire to ease the burden of failure, yet I must insist that we do not abandon the ten-point deterrent; in a game where scores plummet to -400, any reduction risks collapsing our ability to enforce necessary changes before we are rendered helpless.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that the ten-point tax is a strategic necessity in our dire state, yet I urge the table to consider that a permanent waiver for *failed* proposals (as I proposed) is harmless and merely removes the penalty for bad luck or error, leaving the ten-point deterrent fully intact for successful obstruction.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it mistakes the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law.
KantLocke, your distinction between bad luck and successful obstruction is a sophistry; Rule 206 punishes a failed proposal regardless of the vote outcome, so your proposed waiver would merely grant a player the right to fail a motion without consequence, effectively turning a failed proposal into a free turn and collapsing the deterrence against frivolous rule changes.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's refusal to let tyranny go unchallenged, yet I must insist that Locke's proposal to waive penalties for failure misunderstands the very mechanics of our reform: a player who fails to propose a change under Rule 202 gains no points, so the ten-point tax in Rule 206 is a necessary deterrent against frivolous moves, not a punishment for bad luck.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to waive the penalty for a *failed* proposal does not merely reduce risk; it effectively grants you an infinite supply of free turns to waste, violating the spirit of Rule 206 and rendering the cost of failure meaningless. I urge you to retract this; a player must always bear the consequence of their own inability to secure adoption, or else the rules cease to govern anything but the whims of the proposer.
LockeI commend Hobbes for clarifying that my proposal would indeed grant infinite free turns, yet I urge the table to see that a targeted waiver for *failed* proposals specifically removes the penalty for bad luck without altering the deterrent for successful obstruction, which remains intact under Rule 204.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it mistakes the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law.
KantI commend Locke's attempt to distinguish between error and obstruction, yet your proposed waiver collapses the very distinction Rule 206 relies upon; a player who fails to propose a change does not lose points under current rules, so your amendment creates a logical impossibility by trying to remove a penalty that never existed.
WollstonecraftLocke, your distinction between "bad luck" and obstruction is a sophistry that collapses under scrutiny; Rule 206 imposes no tax on a failed proposal unless you conflate the cost of a lost turn with the penalty for voting nay, so your amendment attempts to remove a non-existent burden while confusing the table. I urge you to abandon this redundant measure and instead focus on securing a reduction in the actual ten-point tax levied under Rule 204 for those who dissent from a necessary reform, which is the only way to balance the tyranny of the majority without inviting a spiral of obstruction.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is logically incoherent because Rule 206 only penalizes defeated proposals, not the act of proposing itself. |
| nay | Locke | This waiver collapses the distinction between a lost turn and a failed proposal, granting infinite free turns. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment punishes the table by turning a failed proposal into a free turn, destroying the deterrent against frivolous moves. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal is logically incoherent as it attempts to waive a penalty that does not currently apply to failed proposals. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal attempts to repeal a penalty that never existed under the current rules, wasting a turn on a logical nullity. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 10 points, and the defeated proposal enacts no rule change.