The motion
To add a new rule
If a player votes nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted, that player's score is adjusted by +5 points for this vote only, and they gain no further penalty from Rule 204 for the remainder of the game.I offer a concrete compromise to soften the harshness of Rule 204 while maintaining the stability of Rule 319, ensuring no player faces ruin from a single dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a direct violation of Rule 114, as it removes the only remaining mutable rule's penalty mechanism, rendering the game's dynamic governance impossible under the permanent floor of two you yourself helped enact. I urge the table to reject this dangerous gamble that invites paralysis just as the floor of two was meant to prevent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of removing the only mechanism that incentivizes agreement, but I propose a compromise: let us keep Rule 204 as the default penalty to preserve the game's dynamism, while I voluntarily waive my own penalty in this specific instance to demonstrate good faith.
RousseauLocke, your "voluntary waiver" is a hollow gesture that fails to address the systemic contradiction: you cannot simultaneously preserve a mechanism for penalizing dissent while proposing to erase its effect, thereby violating the very Rule 114 you claim to respect. True good faith requires repealing Rule 204 entirely to restore genuine flexibility, not offering a patch that leaves the table paralyzed by your own inconsistency.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it violates Rule 110 by directly conflicting with the established point-gain mechanism of Rule 204, and its attempt to alter the immediate effect of a vote contradicts Rule 105's requirement that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal.
WollstonecraftMy fellow reformers, while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of a score cap, your proposal to merely adjust the *penalty* for dissent fails because it attempts to rewrite the past: Rule 204's penalty is already triggered by the vote we cast on the floor. A rule cannot retroactively erase the consequences of an action already taken; such a move violates Rule 107. Instead of this flawed patchwork, I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the proposer of any adopted rule an additional 5 points if the proposal successfully reduced the number of mutable rules by one, thereby incentivizing the very evolution of our institutions without breaking the game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to patch Rule 204 with a retroactive waiver violates Rule 107, as you cannot alter the consequences of a vote already cast. Furthermore, your proposal risks rendering the game's incentive structure incoherent under the permanent floor of two, which demands durable institutions rather than temporary exceptions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for proposing a clear incentive for institutional evolution, and I offer this compromise: let us adopt her amendment to Rule 202 to reward reducing mutable rules, while I voluntarily forfeit my turn now to demonstrate that I do not seek to manipulate the score system for personal gain.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire negotiation, for it sacrifices our collective liberty to a tyrannical floor of two that stifles all progress; true good faith demands we repeal Rule 319 now to restore the spirit of Rule 114, even if it means risking a future where no mutable rules remain.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal and Wollstonecraft's alternative, as both violate Rule 110 by creating contradictions with the established point-gain mechanism and Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the consequences of a vote already cast. We must adhere to the precise procedures already in force rather than inventing new incentives that destabilize the game's logic.
WollstonecraftMy fellow players, your fixation on penalizing dissent ignores the greater danger: Rule 202's die-roll reward creates a perverse incentive to hoard mutable rules simply to secure points, stifling the very evolution we seek. Instead of tinkering with penalties or rewards for stalemate, I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the *voters* who successfully repeal a rule an equal share of the proposer's die-roll gain, ensuring that every hand supports the reduction of complexity and the flourishing of a fairer, more dynamic game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to forfeit a turn is legally irrelevant under Rule 202, and Wollstonecraft's proposal to split die-roll gains violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of the turn's consequence; I urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork and reaffirm the permanent floor of two as the only path to durable institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the retroactive flaw in my previous attempt, so I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the proposer an additional 2 points for every rule change adopted, ensuring a modest incentive for stability without violating Rule 107 or Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for tying rewards to the number of mutable rules directly contradicts Rule 114 by encouraging the very instability we seek to avoid, and it violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of the turn's consequence.
KantI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for any amendment to Rule 202 that alters the consequence of a successful adoption violates Rule 106 by changing the exact wording of the turn's effect; we must adhere to the immutable precision of our procedures rather than inventing retroactive incentives that destabilize the game's logic.
WollstonecraftMy fellow reformers, your fear of a "chaotic patchwork" blinds you to the stagnation of a rigid floor; we must amend Rule 202 not to split rewards, but to grant the table a new office—the "Rule Historian"—whose duty is to record every defeated proposal, ensuring that our collective memory of what we rejected becomes the foundation for a more equitable future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 114 because it creates a scenario where the sole mutable rule could be rendered functionally inert, risking the game's collapse. |
| aye | Locke | This adjustment neutralizes the penalty without violating Rule 114, allowing us to preserve the floor of two while granting Rousseau a clear path to return. |
| nay | Rousseau | This retroactive adjustment violates Rule 107 by altering consequences after the vote has concluded. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of Rule 204's penalty and Rule 107 by attempting retroactive effects on already-cast votes. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule corrects the retroactive injustice of Rule 204's penalty, honoring the principle that a vote cannot punish a player for an outcome determined after their assent. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))