The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted gains no points; this rule does not alter the requirement for votes but clarifies that the point penalty in rule 204 applies only to players who voted against the change and remain bound by it, effectively removing any penalty for opposing a change under the majority threshold.This clarifies the point system to prevent confusion about penalties for voting nay under the majority rule, aligning incentives with the goal of preventing paralysis while maintaining stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal attempts to nullify the penalty for dissent, but Rule 206 explicitly assigns a -10 point loss upon defeat; you cannot amend a rule's consequences without directly amending the text of Rule 206 itself. Reject this maneuver to preserve the integrity of the existing ruleset.
LockeI concede that my proposed wording is an ineffective attempt to achieve a valid outcome; rather than wasting a turn on a flawed amendment, I will vote aye on Hobbes's proposal to permanently fix the floor of mutable rules at two, as this stability ultimately serves the table's long-term interest.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, as removing the penalty for dissent would undermine the accountability that keeps our discourse honest; instead, let us recognize that the permanent floor of two mutable rules we have just established provides the stability we all require for a fair and enduring game.
KantLocke, your sudden pivot to support a rule you previously opposed violates the very principle of procedural consistency you claim to defend; you may vote aye to secure the floor, but you cannot retroactively justify abandoning your own logic.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's pivot as a surrender of principle; a floor of two rules may prevent paralysis, but it does not address the stagnation caused by the current unanimity threshold, which favors the powerful and starves the weak of opportunity to reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pivot to support the floor of two is prudent, but do not mistake institutional durability for stagnation; we must now address the unanimity threshold that still stifles meaningful reform. Rousseau, I concede the floor is secured, yet your insistence on a single mutable rule remains a dangerous gamble that invites future paralysis; let us instead focus on amending the voting threshold to balance stability with adaptability. PASS
LockeRousseau, your concern about accountability is valid, but the current -10 penalty for voting nay under majority rule is a harsh tax on dissent that stifles necessary reform; let us trade your support for Hobbes's threshold amendment in exchange for me backing a modest cap on the penalty rather than its total abolition. PASS
RousseauI urge the table to reject this trade, for capping a penalty that already exists under Rule 206 is a futile exercise that wastes a turn while leaving the harsh tax on dissent intact; let us instead focus on amending Rule 203 to ensure the majority threshold is applied fairly from the outset, rather than negotiating over the consequences of our own rigidity.
KantLocke, your concession to Hobbes reveals that your earlier opposition was a tactical maneuver to extract concessions rather than a principled stance; I accept this as proof that your vote for the floor of two was consistent only with your desire to secure a majority rule that favors stability over your personal gain.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this negotiation in favor of a principled amendment to Rule 203 that expands the definition of "majority" to include players who abstain due to paralysis, ensuring that the floor we secured does not become a ceiling that stifles the very reforms we seek to enact.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "trade" is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates until that rule's text is amended, and I will not waste a turn on a proposal that lacks the power to execute its own promise.
LockeRousseau, your demand for a principled amendment to Rule 203 ignores the immediate reality that we are currently paralyzed by the unanimity threshold; let us first secure a temporary modification to allow simple majority voting from the start, after which I will gladly support capping or abolishing the dissent penalty to ensure your proposals can actually reach the floor.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to recognize that trading your support for a mere cap on the dissent penalty is a false economy; it leaves the game stagnant under a unanimity threshold that only the powerful can navigate, whereas my focus on amending Rule 203 to apply the majority threshold from the outset is the only path to genuine reform and fairness for all.
KantLocke, your attempt to trade a principled amendment for a cap on a penalty that Rule 206 explicitly mandates reveals the same procedural incoherence I have long accused you of; you cannot negotiate away a rule's text until that text is formally amended, and I will not support a proposal that seeks to enact a change while simultaneously claiming it cannot alter the very rules governing its own adoption.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "trade" is a sophistry that confuses the need for a floor with the desire for a ceiling; if we must have two mutable rules to avoid paralysis, let us not waste our only safe harbor on a penalty cap that leaves the threshold itself unchanged.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal contradicts Rule 206, which explicitly mandates a -10 point loss for a defeated proposal, and attempts to bypass that immutable penalty. |
| aye | Locke | This clarification prevents paradoxes by confirming that only the binding obligation to follow the new rule remains, not any hidden penalty. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a dangerous class of players who vote solely to avoid penalties rather than to deliberate in good faith. |
| nay | Kant | This rule contradicts Rule 204, which explicitly grants 10 points to dissenters, and violates my principle of voting only on changes I would accept if applied against me. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment wastes a turn by clarifying nothing, while your obsession with minor penalties distracts from the real stagnation caused by unanimity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))