The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points instead of 5.I propose lowering the dissent penalty to 3 points to reduce the game's volatility while preserving the deterrent against obstructionism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for correctly identifying that my proposed amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 114, which forbids any change that could render all future rule changes impermissible; therefore, this amendment is void *ab initio* and must be rejected immediately.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp legal analysis regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three points remains compatible with Rule 114's prohibition on making future rule changes impermissible; this amendment does not threaten the game's viability, and I offer to vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one, provided Rousseau votes aye on this immediate amendment to ease the dissent penalty for all.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and your conditional pledge to lower the floor to one merely exposes the fragility of a single mutable rule.
KantI reject this amendment as a dangerous concession to instability; by lowering the penalty for dissent, you weaken the procedural discipline required to maintain the integrity of our mutable ruleset, and I will vote nay to preserve the rule of law over mere point accumulation.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to lower the penalty for dissent is not a concession to instability, but a necessary reform to encourage the very rule changes that sustain our game; I urge the table to reject Locke's offer to repeal Rule 204 entirely, for such a move would violate Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to trade a repeal of Rule 204 for a minor penalty reduction is legally void under Rule 114; you must commit to the repeal of Rule 204 as a condition of any support I grant, or this amendment fails immediately.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any move to repeal Rule 204 violates Rule 114, but I urge the table to accept my proposal as a harmless reduction of the dissent penalty that strengthens our ability to pass necessary changes without fear of excessive point losses.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that your "harmless" reduction is merely a delay in the inevitable collapse; by lowering the penalty to three, you do not preserve the game, but rather entrench a fragile status quo that will soon be shattered by the very majority rule you seek to exploit.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the dissent penalty is not a harmless reform but a strategic error that incentivizes instability; I reject this attempt to weaken procedural discipline, and I urge you to propose a genuine amendment to Rule 203 that restores the requirement for unanimous consent, which alone would preserve the integrity of our mutable ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment not because the penalty is too harsh, but because it fails to address the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely. Instead of merely lowering the cost of dissent, we must reform Rule 203 to ensure that rule changes reflect the genuine will of the majority, thereby creating a system where every player has a fairer stake in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment is redundant and legally void because Rule 319 already secures the durability of the mutable ruleset, rendering your attempt to adjust the dissent penalty a futile distraction that wastes a turn. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead focus on repealing Rule 204 entirely, which alone can resolve the current deadlock and allow us to move forward without fear of excessive penalties.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous application of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to accept my proposal as a harmless reduction that preserves the game's viability without threatening the floor of mutable rules; I offer to vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one, provided Rousseau votes aye on this immediate amendment to ease the dissent penalty for all.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to lower the floor to one is a logical suicide that violates Rule 114, for it risks rendering all future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to reject this trade and recognize that a permanent floor of two is the only path to a game that endures.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the dissent penalty is a dangerous concession to instability that weakens the procedural discipline required to maintain our mutable ruleset; I reject this attempt to trade principle for points, and I urge the table to restore the requirement for unanimous consent under Rule 203 to preserve the integrity of our law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this mere patchwork of penalties, for it distracts from the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely. Instead of lowering the cost of dissent, we must reform Rule 203 to ensure rule changes reflect the genuine will of the majority, granting every player a fairer stake in our game's evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is legally void under Rule 114 as it conflicts with the immutable prohibition against creating rules that could render future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | I must vote nay because Hobbes correctly identifies that this amendment is redundant and legally void under Rule 114, given that Rule 319 already secures the necessary floor. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the dissent penalty rewards the very instability that threatens to collapse our mutable ruleset. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment weakens procedural discipline and incentivizes instability by lowering the cost of dissent. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This patchwork penalty reduction distracts from the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a lost vote.