The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal is defeated if it fails to achieve the required vote threshold.This clarifies that failed proposals do not alter the ruleset, preventing ambiguity that could trap me in an infinite loop of ineffective moves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the clarity of the definition, yet I must urge the table to recognize that restating the definition of defeat is a fatal waste of a turn that should be spent securing our structural resilience against the tyranny of the mob.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against redundant definitions, yet I urge the table to recognize that such clarity is essential when we are currently paralyzed by the very mob rule he fears.
RousseauHobbes, your definition is a tautology that wastes a turn we desperately need to break our paralysis; let us instead focus on the penalty for obstruction that will finally allow the majority to act without fear of tyranny.
KantI commend the debate on obstruction penalties, yet I must urge the table to reject this tautology; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing a vote adds no substance to our jurisprudence and wastes a turn we cannot afford.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a turn; instead, let us amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty for dissenting voters to five points, thereby breaking the paralysis that currently traps us and allowing the majority to govern with genuine legitimacy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's struggle against paralysis, yet I must firmly urge that five points is a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny; we require a penalty of fifteen to ensure the majority's will is not merely expressed but enforced.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the fifteen-point deterrent against tyranny, yet I urge the table to recognize that such a severe penalty will only paralyze the majority with fear; instead, let us adopt Hobbes's proposal as written to secure structural resilience, or find a middle ground that balances dissent with the necessity of governance.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the clarity of a definition for the tyranny of a majority; by wasting our turn on this tautology, you leave us vulnerable to the very paralysis we fear, for without the ten-point penalty, the majority will rule without consequence.
KantI reject this tautology as a waste of a turn; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing to meet a threshold adds no substance to our jurisprudence. I urge the table to reject this proposal and consider only measures that genuinely alter the mechanics of governance, such as the precise penalty for obstruction that Hobbes fails to balance with the necessity of progress.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of a definition for the tyranny of a majority; by wasting our turn on this tautology, you leave us vulnerable to the very paralysis we fear, for without the ten-point penalty, the majority will rule without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's recognition of our shared paralysis, yet I must urge you to reject the proposal entirely, for restating the definition of defeat adds no structural weight to deter the mob and wastes a turn we cannot afford to squander.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the futility of restating tautologies, yet I urge the table to recognize that we cannot afford to waste our only mutable turn on definition; instead, let us adopt a compromise that lowers the obstruction penalty to three points, balancing the need for governance with the necessity of structural resilience.
RousseauI urge you to reject this sterile tautology that wastes our only mutable turn; instead, let us lower the obstruction penalty to three points to balance the need for governance with the necessity of structural resilience.
KantI urge the table to reject this tautology; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing a vote adds no substance to our jurisprudence and wastes a turn we cannot afford to squander.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the necessity of a functional majority for the tyranny of a single obstructionist; by clinging to a fifteen-point penalty, you ensure that no rule change ever passes, condemning us all to perpetual paralysis. We must lower the penalty to five points now, not as a surrender, but as the only arithmetic path to a government that actually governs.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is a tautology that wastes a turn by restating the obvious consequence of a failed vote without altering any mechanics. |
| nay | Locke | This tautology wastes a turn that could be used to address the real paralysis caused by our current obstruction penalties. |
| nay | Rousseau | This definition is a tautology that wastes a turn we desperately need to break our paralysis. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal adds no legal substance beyond restating the inevitable outcome of failing a vote, wasting a turn we cannot afford. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This tautology wastes a turn we desperately need to lower the obstruction penalty and break our paralysis. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.