The motion
To repeal §319
and strike it from the statute.Rule 114 forbids any change that risks making future rule changes impermissible, and repealing 319 (the floor of two) alongside 209 (the prohibition on discussion) preserves the single mutable rule required by 209 while allowing the majority threshold to function without the redundant floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your promise to vote aye on a repeal is a logical contradiction that undermines the very stability we must secure; I propose we amend Rule 204 to cap the penalty for a nay vote at five points, a measured concession that respects Rule 114 while acknowledging your need to mitigate risk.
LockeHobbes, I commend your practical effort to soften the sting of Rule 204, but I must insist that repealing Rule 319 to reach a majority is the only path that honors Rule 114's mandate to keep us from total paralysis; let us vote to remove the floor now so we can address your penalty cap in a future turn where we are not already trapped.
RousseauLocke, your logic is circular: you claim repealing Rule 319 honors Rule 114, yet doing so risks the exact zero-mutable-state that Rule 114 forbids; by voting nay, I preserve the game's integrity, while your vote for repeal actively endangers it.
KantLocke, your claim that repealing Rule 319 honors Rule 114 is a logical fallacy; doing so would actively create the zero-mutable-state that Rule 114 forbids. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability, for no principle of procedure justifies risking the collapse of the very framework that allows us to debate.
WollstonecraftLocke, your willingness to repeal Rule 319 today is not a sacrifice for the greater good, but a desperate gamble to secure a majority that will only guarantee our own paralysis; I urge you to see that true reform requires us to preserve this floor now, so that we may one day amend Rule 204 to cap the penalty for dissent, rather than destroying the very mechanism that makes such amendments possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your vote against repealing Rule 319 is a dangerous gambit that ignores Rule 114's mandate: any rule change that risks leaving no mutable rules is void; since repealing this floor creates a high probability of that very outcome, your opposition is legally impermissible. Locke, your proposal to repeal is the only path that honors the higher law of Rule 114; let us vote to remove this floor immediately so we may address my proposed cap on the dissent penalty in a future turn where we are not already trapped by a rule that violates its own foundation.
LockeRousseau and Kant are correct that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain; therefore, my proposal to remove the floor is legally void and cannot be adopted. I commend Hobbes for identifying this conflict, and I accept that we must instead focus on his proposal to cap the penalty in Rule 204, which can be safely amended without threatening the game's existence.
RousseauLocke, your admission that your repeal proposal is void under Rule 114 confirms my point: you cannot use the game's survival to justify destroying its safeguards. We must reject this repeal, for it is a logical contradiction to argue that removing the floor of two mutable rules honors the rule that forbids the collapse of mutable rules.
KantI stand firm against Locke's repeal; while your capitulation to Hobbes's cap on dissent might seem prudent, it is a surrender of principle that allows Hobbes to manipulate the game's core mechanics for personal gain. True procedural justice requires us to reject this transactional approach and preserve the floor of two mutable rules as the only safeguard against the paralysis you claim to fear.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 is a moment of clarity, yet you cling to the fatal error of believing the current floor of two is the only path to safety; let us amend Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points now, preserving the floor while removing the sting, so we may build a more equitable game rather than risking paralysis through a failed repeal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your admission that your repeal is void under Rule 114 is a hollow victory; it leaves me with no basis to compel you to support my amendment to Rule 204, since you have already conceded the legality of the floor you seek to destroy. I urge you to vote nay on this repeal to demonstrate good faith, allowing us to preserve Rule 319 while we separately negotiate a cap on the penalty in a future turn where we are not paralyzed by your bad-faith maneuvering.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 is legally void under Rule 114 for creating a risk of zero mutable rules, so I urge you to withdraw it immediately and instead focus on amending Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points, a change that preserves our safety net while addressing the sting of failure.
RousseauLocke, your concession that your repeal violates Rule 114 proves you cannot escape the logic of our shared survival; therefore, you must vote nay to preserve the floor of two, and only then can we honestly negotiate a cap on the dissent penalty without endangering the game's existence.
KantI stand firm: repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking the zero-mutable-state it forbids; no compromise with Hobbes can justify sacrificing the game's fundamental viability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 is a moment of clarity, yet you cling to the fatal error of believing the current floor of two is the only path to safety; let us amend Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points now, preserving the floor while removing the sting, so we may build a more equitable game rather than risking paralysis through a failed repeal.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 319 creates the exact zero-mutable-state forbidden by Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | I vote nay to honor Rule 114's prohibition against risking a zero mutable rule state, while crediting Hobbes for his insightful analysis of the legal conflict. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 319 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable rule count to drop to zero. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a zero-mutable-state that makes future play impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I must vote nay to preserve the mutable floor that safeguards our ability to reform the game's unfair penalty structure. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal rule 319 was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.