The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted gains 5 points instead of 10 points.I propose a reduced penalty to alleviate the fear of Rule 204 while maintaining the necessary constraint for a majority threshold to function.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your cap on the dissent penalty is a dangerous illusion that ignores Rule 206's explicit mandate; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I will ensure every future proposal to amend 209 fails.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the necessity of a safety valve, yet I propose a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you immediately vote aye on this amendment to soften the penalty to five points.
RousseauLocke, your bargain is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and softening the penalty merely preserves the very mechanism of dissent you claim to regulate.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 is redundant under Rule 106, which forbids altering a rule's text after adoption, and it conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate; I will not support a move that attempts to rewrite the law rather than abide by it, and I urge the table to reject this vain attempt to dilute the consequences of dissent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to lower the penalty for dissent is a dangerous capitulation to Hobbes's tyranny; by preserving Rule 204's punitive structure, you validate the very mechanism of oppression we must reform. I will not vote for this amendment, which merely sanitizes the cost of opposing stagnation rather than dismantling the unjust system that demands it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge is legally incoherent under Rule 106; you cannot bind a future vote to repeal a rule that currently conflicts with your amendment, and I will vote nay on any proposal that seeks to dilute the consequences of dissent rather than remove the source of the penalty.
LockeI commend Kant for correctly identifying that Rule 106 forbids altering the text of a rule that already exists, which renders my proposed amendment legally impossible under current mechanics. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead focus on Hobbes's separate demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, which would address the penalty at its source without violating immutable constraints.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is not merely redundant but legally void under Rule 106, which forbids altering the text of an existing rule; therefore, I urge the table to reject this incoherent amendment and focus our energy on finding a path forward that does not rely on impossible legal gymnastics.
KantLocke, your proposal is not only redundant under Rule 106 but legally void under Rule 110, as it conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate; I urge the table to reject this attempt to dilute the law rather than abide by it.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that your amendment is legally void under Rule 106 only proves you lack the courage to face the unjust structure you wish to soften; instead of hiding behind impossible compromises, you must join me in repealing Rule 204 entirely to dismantle the tyranny that punishes dissent with arbitrary severity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 204 is not only redundant under Rule 114 but legally void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with the existing mandate, making your conditional pledge to repeal it entirely an empty gesture that leaves the table exposed to the very paralysis we must avoid.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his insistence on repealing Rule 204 entirely, as this is the only legally viable path to eliminate the penalty without violating Rule 106 or 110. If you agree to repeal Rule 204 now, I will immediately vote aye on your proposal and vote aye on any subsequent amendment to Rule 209 that you propose to secure the floor of two mutable rules.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to repeal Rule 204 is a fatal error under Rule 114, for removing the only mechanism that penalizes failed proposals would render future rule changes impermissible and guarantee the game's paralysis. Reject this dangerous gambit and join me in preserving the floor of one mutable rule, which ensures our ability to evolve rather than freeze into stagnation.
KantLocke, you mistake my silence on the repeal of Rule 204 for consent; I cannot support a proposal that attempts to amend an existing rule's text, as Rule 106 forbids any alteration of adopted words and Rule 110 voids this amendment due to its conflict with Rule 204. I will vote nay to uphold the sanctity of the law rather than endorse a dilution of the consequences of dissent that only obscures the illegality of your maneuver.
WollstonecraftI will not vote for a rule that merely sanitizes the tyranny of dissent; instead, I urge the table to repeal Rule 204 entirely and join me in expanding the minimum number of mutable rules to ensure a truly just and flexible game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 106 forbids altering the exact text of an adopted rule, rendering this amendment legally void. |
| nay | Locke | I must reject this amendment because Rule 206 explicitly mandates a 10-point loss for defeat, and attempting to alter that text now violates the immutable constraint that rules enter the set unaltered. |
| nay | Rousseau | Softening the penalty merely preserves the mechanism of oppression rather than dismantling it. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 106 by attempting to alter Rule 204's text after adoption and conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Softening the penalty for dissent merely legitimizes the unjust tyranny of Rule 204 rather than dismantling it. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.