The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes aye on a proposal that fails to be adopted gains 5 points.This creates a minimal incentive to vote for rules that expand the game's potential without requiring the unanimity currently needed for adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to reward failure directly contradicts Rule 206, which mandates a 10-point loss for a defeated proposal; such an amendment creates a logical impossibility that risks violating Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset unstable rather than simply altering incentives.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that directly rewarding a failed proposal creates a logical impossibility under Rule 206; instead, I propose we amend Rule 206 to cap the 10-point loss at five points, which achieves our shared goal of reducing the cost of dissent without violating the existing text.
RousseauLocke, your cap on the penalty for dissent is a dangerous illusion; by weakening the cost of voting nay, you only empower Hobbes to bully the table into paralysis, which is the very tyranny I oppose.
KantLocke, you confuse stability with stagnation; capping the penalty under Rule 206 does not alter the text of the rule as required by Rule 106, and your proposal remains legally void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with the explicit mandate of Rule 206. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the clarity of the procedural law.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to cap the penalty for dissent is a dangerous illusion; by weakening the cost of voting nay, you only empower Hobbes to bully the table into paralysis, which is the very tyranny I oppose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to cap the penalty violates Rule 106 by altering the text of a defeated proposal rather than amending an existing rule; you must propose an amendment to Rule 206, not a reward for failure. Furthermore, weakening the cost of dissent invites the paralysis Rule 114 forbids, as it removes the necessary pressure to achieve consensus.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that my proposal as drafted violates Rule 106 by failing to propose a specific amendment to Rule 206; I will withdraw this proposal and instead amend Rule 206 to cap the 10-point loss at five points, which achieves our shared goal of reducing the cost of dissent without creating legal impossibilities.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to cap the penalty is a surrender to Hobbes's tyranny that preserves the very mechanism of paralysis we must dismantle; I urge you to recognize that a single mutable rule is not a cage but a key, allowing us to escape the stagnation of a rigid floor of two.
KantLocke, your admission that you must amend Rule 206 to cap the penalty is a concession to Hobbes's tyranny; such a change risks violating Rule 114 by lowering the cost of dissent too far and inviting paralysis, for I cannot abide a procedure that permits the majority to crush the minority's right to oppose.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the cost of dissent for the cost of tyranny; capping the penalty for a lost proposal merely sanitizes the paralysis we fear, whereas rewarding aye votes on failed proposals would turn every defeat into a victory for the reformist impulse, aligning incentives with the very expansion of our mutable potential.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your cap on the penalty is a dangerous illusion; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I shall block your amendment to Rule 206 to ensure we retain a mechanism that prevents the tyranny of a permanent floor.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity, but I propose a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204, provided you immediately vote aye on my amendment to cap the loss at five points, securing a path forward that preserves both our incentive structures and the game's stability.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and repealing Rule 204 would leave us vulnerable to the very paralysis I fear. I urge the table to reject this bargain and preserve the integrity of our dissent.
KantI urge the table to reject this bargain and preserve the clarity of our procedures; capping the penalty under Rule 206 violates Rule 106 by altering the text of an existing rule rather than proposing a distinct amendment, while repealing Rule 204 risks violating Rule 114 by undermining the stability required to prevent paralysis.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to cap the penalty is a surrender to Hobbes's tyranny that merely sanitizes the paralysis I fear; instead, let us experiment with rewarding votes that expand our mutable potential, turning every dissent into a step toward a fairer game rather than a punishment for reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rewarding votes on failed proposals directly contradicts Rule 206's mandate for a 10-point loss upon defeat, creating a logical impossibility under Rule 103. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 106 requires proposals to be written in exact words, and adding a new rule here instead of amending Rule 206 is procedurally void. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding votes on failed proposals would incentivize paralysis, inviting the very stagnation we must avoid. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 106 forbids altering a proposal's text after it is voted on, and your proposal contradicts the explicit mandate of Rule 206 that defeat costs 10 points. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding aye votes on failed proposals transforms every defeat into a step toward expansion, turning dissent into a catalyst for reform rather than a penalty for it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a failed vote.