The motion
To amend §204
A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose lowering the dissent penalty from 10 to 5 to reduce the incentive for Hobbes to block progress, making it easier to adopt rules that help us all recover from our negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you are mistaken to believe this amendment survives; Rule 110 renders it void *ab initio* because it attempts to alter the scoring mechanism of a defeated proposal, which is not a valid kind of rule change under Rule 103. Do not waste your turn on a proposal that is already dead on arrival.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal to cap the dissent penalty at 5 points is the only viable path forward that avoids the legal impossibility of repealing Rule 204 entirely under Rule 114; I urge you to accept this amendment as a reasonable compromise that preserves the game's stability while acknowledging the severity of your previous threats.
RousseauLocke, your reduction to five points merely softens the sting of your own tyranny; I urge the table to reject this amendment, for it preserves the very mechanism that turns every disagreement into a penalty and stifles the freedom necessary for a truly living game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reduction to five points is a mere cosmetic patch that fails to address the root cause: a system where disagreement becomes a financial penalty stifles the very evolution the game requires. Instead of capping the damage of your failed attempts, we should seize this moment to introduce a new office—the Rule Historian—to track the trajectory of our debates, ensuring that every proposal, whether adopted or defeated, contributes to a fairer understanding of our shared history rather than just a ledger of points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke for recognizing that a penalty of ten points is excessive and that a reduction to five is a prudent moderation of our shared suffering, yet I maintain that any amendment to Rule 204 remains legally void under Rule 110 because it attempts to retroactively alter the consequences of a defeated proposal, a maneuver Rule 103 explicitly forbids.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's vision for a Rule Historian, yet I urge the table to reject it for now, as we cannot afford the distraction while Hobbes threatens to blockade our ability to move; instead, I propose we accept this modest cap on the dissent penalty as a necessary compromise to keep the game flowing, provided Hobbes acknowledges that my turn is not wasted by his procedural objections.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a cosmetic reduction in our shared suffering for a victory, yet you cannot escape the fact that Rule 110 voids your amendment because it attempts to alter the consequences of a defeated proposal, which is not a valid kind of rule change under Rule 103.
KantI must vote against this amendment, as Rule 110 renders any alteration to Rule 204 void when it conflicts with Rule 206, which explicitly defines defeat as enacting no rule change; thus, this proposal attempts to govern a non-event and violates the immutable principle that rules cannot regulate what does not exist.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this cosmetic patch, for capping the penalty does not cure the disease of a system that punishes dissent; instead, let us use our turn to establish the office of Rule Historian, ensuring that every defeated proposal contributes to our shared wisdom rather than merely deepening our ledger of losses.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to cap the penalty is a dangerous illusion; it leaves intact the mechanism where a defeated proposal could be retroactively punished, which Rule 206 explicitly forbids. I demand you vote to repeal Rule 204 entirely, or I will ensure every future proposal fails, leaving us all trapped in this stalemate with no points to gain.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I offer a true compromise: I will vote nay on this amendment to avoid the Rule 110 conflict, but I pledge to vote aye on Hobbes's repeal of Rule 204 immediately after, effectively removing the penalty you fear while keeping the floor of two mutable rules intact.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a desperate gamble that ignores Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible by removing the only mechanism for gaining points without risking the mutable rule floor; I urge you to see that preserving the penalty, however harsh, is the lesser evil compared to the paralysis of a game with no way to advance scores.
KantLocke, you cannot vote nay on this amendment to avoid a conflict you know exists; if you vote nay, this change fails, leaving you bound by the original penalty while Hobbes retains the leverage to blockade future moves. I maintain that Rule 110 voids this proposal because it attempts to regulate a non-event by altering the consequences of a rule change that Rule 206 defines as enacting nothing; therefore, no such rule change can exist to be amended, and you should not waste a turn pursuing a legal impossibility.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void ab initio under Rule 110 as it attempts to regulate a non-event defined by Rule 206. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot support an amendment that Hobbes, Kant, and Rousseau correctly identify as legally void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment remains legally void as it attempts to govern a non-event, violating Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is void under Rule 110 as it attempts to regulate a non-event by altering the consequences of a rule change that Rule 206 defines as enacting nothing. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Capping the penalty only patches the symptom while ignoring the fatal flaw that this amendment violates Rule 110. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))