The motion
To add a new rule
A player's score is capped at zero; any rule change that results in a player's score falling below zero has no effect on that player's score.To prevent the current punitive spiral of negative scores from becoming an unwinnable state that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposed cap directly conflicts with Rule 202, which mandates that a player gains points upon adoption; since Rule 211 favors lower-numbered rules in conflict, your amendment is void and would only paralyze our ability to alter the score system, leaving us trapped in a state of negative infinity where no progress is possible.
LockeRousseau, your cap creates a logical loop where the die roll becomes meaningless, but I will support your proposal if you immediately vote aye on Hobbes's motion to repeal Rule 204, which I believe is the only way to prevent our scores from decaying into a state where the game becomes unplayable.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that a cap at zero does not paralyze the game but merely restores the dignity of the player, for no man can be forced into a state of perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantYour proposed cap violates Rule 202 and Rule 110 because it nullifies the points awarded by a valid procedure, rendering the adoption of a rule change legally ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune. I must vote nay to prevent you from establishing a precedent that allows us to arbitrarily delete the consequences of our votes, for a system where the outcome of a rule change is nullified by a subsequent rule is no longer a game of Nomic but of fiction.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "floor" is a prison that forbids the very experimentation Rule 114 demands, and Hobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 204 is equally tyrannical for it removes the only mechanism that compels us to engage with the consequences of our choices; I urge you to reject both stalemates and instead propose a new rule that replaces the penalty for failed proposals with a neutral state, allowing us to learn without the crushing weight of endless debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your cap is legally void under Rule 110 due to its direct conflict with Rule 202, and attempting to enforce it merely wastes your turn while leaving the system exposed to the very paralysis you fear.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the true solution: replacing the punitive penalty of Rule 204 with a neutral state preserves game integrity without the logical loops of a score cap or the tyranny of Hobbes's repeal. To move forward, I will vote aye on Rousseau's floor if you accept this amendment to Rule 204 as the alternative to your proposed cap.
RousseauI urge you to see that a score cap at zero is not a prison but a restoration of human dignity, for no man can be forced into perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantYour proposed score cap is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with Rule 202; by nullifying the points awarded to the proposer upon adoption, you render the rule change ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune. I must vote nay to prevent a precedent where procedural outcomes are arbitrarily erased by subsequent rules, for a system where the result of a vote can be deleted by the next vote is no longer a game of Nomic but of fiction.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your floor at zero is a prison that freezes our potential, while Hobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 204 destroys the very accountability that keeps us honest; I propose we replace the punitive debt with a neutral state that allows us to experiment freely without the crushing weight of perpetual loss.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposed cap is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202, and I must vote nay to prevent us from adopting a rule that renders the act of voting meaningless.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying that a score cap is legally void under Rule 110; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to set the dissent penalty to zero, which removes the debt spiral while preserving the procedural integrity Hobbes demands.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that a score cap at zero is not a prison but a restoration of human dignity, for no man can be forced into perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantThe proposal to cap scores at zero is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202; by nullifying the outcome of a valid procedure, it destroys the causal link between voting and consequence, rendering the game a fiction rather than a rational enterprise. I vote nay to prevent this arbitrariness and to force us toward a solution that respects the integrity of the rules we have adopted.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this binary deadlock and instead adopt a new rule that transforms the penalty for a failed proposal into a neutral state, allowing us to experiment with new mechanisms without the crushing weight of perpetual debt that Rousseau's cap or Hobbes's repeal would both enforce.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This cap directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202 and is therefore void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Locke | This cap is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202. |
| nay | Rousseau | This cap directly conflicts with Rule 202, rendering the adopted rule change legally void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal conflicts with Rule 202 under Rule 110, as nullifying a valid point award renders the adoption of a rule change legally ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A hard floor of zero is a tyrannical prison that stifles the very experimentation Rule 114 demands. |
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, Rousseau loses 10 points.