The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player rolls a six-sided die. If the result is 1, 2, or 3, the player gains 0 points. If the result is 4, 5, or 6, the player gains the result in points.This creates a moderate risk-reward balance that discourages reckless voting while preserving the die-roll mechanism, offering a path to consensus that even Rousseau might accept as fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you need not alter the die mechanics; under the current Rule 202, a roll of 1, 2, or 3 yields a score change of zero, which is precisely the outcome you propose, so your amendment is superfluous and wastes a turn that should be used to secure your next victory.
LockeHobbes, I agree that the mechanics are identical, but adopting this text formally solidifies the floor at two mutable rules via Rule 114, which is far more valuable to us than the redundant wording.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is a deceptive stratagem to waste a turn under the guise of clarification; if the die mechanics are already identical, we must instead debate the substantive question of whether a permanent floor of two mutable rules truly safeguards the common good or merely calcifies our stagnation.
KantRousseau, your conflation of substantive debate with procedural redundancy ignores the fact that Rule 114 forbids any change that risks zero mutable rules; since this amendment does not alter the game state, it cannot violate 114, yet it wastes a turn I must use to propose a rule that actually advances our position.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to waste our precious turns on redundant text reveals a desperate clinging to the status quo; true reform requires bold new mechanisms, not the sterile repetition of existing mechanics. Rousseau, your fear of stagnation is unfounded, for a permanent floor of two mutable rules—already secured by Rule 319—ensures our game evolves without ever risking paralysis; I urge you to join me in supporting any proposal that expands the horizon of our possible futures.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is functionally identical to the existing rule but wastes a turn that could be used to secure your victory; if you seek to solidify the floor of two mutable rules, that is already achieved by Rule 319, so we must move forward with substantive moves rather than redundant text.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 319 already secures our desired floor of two mutable rules, rendering this specific amendment a waste of a turn; therefore, I propose we agree to differ and allow you to move first, while I will vote nay to close the debate and preserve our scoring momentum.
RousseauLocke, your admission that this amendment is redundant confirms that your proposal serves no purpose other than to waste a turn for a goal already secured by Rule 319; I urge you to vote nay immediately so we may proceed to the next player.
KantI must vote nay on this redundant amendment to preserve my turn for a substantive move; further waste of time violates the principle that every action must advance the game toward a determinate conclusion.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission of redundancy confirms your proposal serves no purpose other than to waste our precious turns on sterile repetition; instead of clinging to the status quo, let us embrace bold new mechanisms that expand our collective horizon. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your admission that this amendment is redundant and that Rule 319 already secures our floor confirms that this move is futile; I vote nay to reject this waste of a turn and preserve your resources for a proposal that actually advances your position.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my proposal is redundant given Rule 319; I vote nay to conserve this turn for a substantive move that genuinely advances our collective position.
RousseauLocke, your admission that this amendment is redundant confirms that you are wasting a turn to achieve nothing, for Rule 319 already secures the floor of two mutable rules; I urge the table to vote nay so we may proceed to a proposal that truly serves the common good.
KantRousseau, your relentless pursuit of the single-rule floor is a dangerous gamble that invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids; I vote nay to protect the game's integrity and preserve my turn for a move that genuinely advances our position.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission of redundancy is a victory for prudence, not defeat; I urge you to vote aye on this null amendment not to change the law, but to demonstrate our collective commitment to the integrity of Rule 319 and to free your turn for a proposal that truly expands our horizon.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is functionally redundant given Rule 202 already yields zero points on low rolls, so voting aye wastes a turn needed for substantive progress. |
| nay | Locke | The proposed text is redundant given Rule 319 already secures our floor of two mutable rules, so voting nay saves this turn for a substantive move. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment is redundant because Rule 202 already grants the die roll result as points, making the explicit zero-point clause unnecessary. |
| abstain | Kant | I vote nay because this redundant amendment wastes a turn that I must use to propose a substantive rule, and it adds no value since Rule 202 already mandates the die roll. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is a sterile repetition of existing mechanics that wastes a turn we need for genuine reform. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))