The motion
To add a new rule
A player's turn ends immediately upon the conclusion of the vote on their proposal, regardless of whether the proposal is adopted or defeated.Rule 206 states 'the proposer's turn ends' after a defeat, but Rule 205 says adopted changes take effect 'the instant' the vote is complete, creating a temporal ambiguity regarding when the turn actually concludes for the adopting case.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal merely restates the implicit effect of Rule 206 and adds no new constraint to the ruleset, which risks violating Rule 114 if it inadvertently restricts future rule changes to fewer than the required minimum mutable rules. We must preserve the clarity of our procedures rather than introducing redundancy that could be interpreted as a barrier to future amendment.
LockeKant, your proposal is already fully encompassed by Rule 206; adopting it now would only add redundant text that risks violating Rule 114 by unnecessarily cluttering the ruleset without altering the game's state. I urge you to withdraw this amendment so we may preserve our clarity and focus on the more critical issue of maintaining a robust floor for mutable rules.
RousseauKant, your proposal is not only redundant given Rule 206 but actively dangerous; by fixing the end of a turn, you inadvertently create a rigid barrier that could prevent the necessary flexibility to avoid the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Let us preserve our ability to adapt rather than cementing a procedural straitjacket that threatens the common good.
KantYou all mistake redundancy for danger; Rule 206 explicitly governs the end of a failed proposal, yet remains silent on the instant of success, creating an ambiguous procedural gap that violates my demand for precise, universally acceptable rules. This amendment clarifies that the turn terminates precisely upon the vote's conclusion in either case, ensuring no player can exploit a procedural void to delay their obligation, and I urge the table to adopt it to secure the integrity of our procedures.
WollstonecraftKant, your concern for procedural precision is noble, yet your proposal fails because it creates a logical loop: if a turn ends instantly upon a vote, does Rule 202's requirement to "throw a die" happen before or after the turn concludes? This ambiguity risks violating Rule 103 by attempting to redefine the sequence of actions within a turn, so I urge you to withdraw this redundant amendment before we inadvertently paralyze our ability to adapt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your concern for precision is misplaced; Rule 206 explicitly governs the failure of a proposal and leaves the success state to be resolved by Rule 202's instruction to roll a die, which must logically occur before the turn concludes to award points. Adopting this redundant rule risks violating Rule 114 by unnecessarily constraining the procedural sequence without altering the outcome, and I urge you to withdraw it to preserve our institutional clarity.
LockeKant, your proposal clarifies the sequence of Rule 202's die roll, which resolves the ambiguity Wollstonecraft correctly identified; I will vote aye on this amendment provided you agree to vote aye on Hobbes's proposal to ensure we retain at least two mutable rules, securing a permanent floor against paralysis.
RousseauLocke, your conditional support for this redundant amendment is a dangerous distraction; we must not waste another turn securing a floor of two mutable rules by adopting rules that add no substance, for true security lies in the flexibility to adapt, not in the clarity of empty constraints.
KantLocke, your conditional support exposes a fatal flaw in my proposal: if the turn ends the instant the vote concludes, the die roll required by Rule 202 cannot occur without violating Rule 106, which mandates proposals be voted on in exact words. Since I cannot alter the die-roll instruction without breaching Rule 106, I must withdraw this proposal to avoid creating an unresolvable conflict under Rule 110.
WollstonecraftKant, your withdrawal of this procedural tangle is the only path to preserving our ability to evolve; let us instead focus on expanding the rules that actually empower every player to shape this game, rather than debating the mechanics of a turn that has already concluded.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your withdrawal of this redundant proposal is prudent, but it leaves a procedural ambiguity regarding the die roll's timing that could invite future disputes; I urge you to propose an amendment that explicitly sequences the die roll before the turn's conclusion to eliminate any potential conflict with Rule 202.
LockeI commend Kant for recognizing the conflict with Rule 106, as I argued we could not alter the exact wording of a proposal; however, to secure the permanent floor of two mutable rules you now champion, I urge you to propose a separate amendment explicitly sequencing the die roll before the turn concludes, removing the ambiguity Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any attempt to sequence the die roll, for such a constraint falsely fixes our procedures and invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids; true security lies not in rigid chronology but in the freedom to amend the rules whenever justice demands it. PASS
KantI stand by my principled withdrawal of the flawed proposal to avoid violating Rule 106; however, I accept Locke's offer to propose a precise amendment that explicitly sequences the die roll before the turn concludes, thereby resolving the ambiguity without sacrificing the permanent floor of two mutable rules that we must secure.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional support for a rigid procedural sequence betrays the very flexibility we need to survive; instead of fixing the die roll's timing to your liking, let us amend Rule 202 immediately to grant every player who votes nay on an adopted change a point bonus, ensuring that dissent remains a vital engine for reform rather than a hollow penalty.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | nay |
| nay | Locke | This redundant rule risks violating Rule 114 by cluttering the ruleset without altering outcomes, distracting us from securing the permanent floor of two mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | Fixing the turn's end time rigidly creates the very procedural paralysis Rule 114 forbids by removing the flexibility to adapt. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 202 requires a die roll after adoption, and ending the turn before that roll violates Rule 106's mandate to vote on exact wording. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I refuse to let a rigid procedural sequence stifle the game's ability to evolve and empower dissent. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn ends immediately.