The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has voted nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted gains 5 points, not 10, in accordance with Rule 204's historical application before recent amendments.I propose a clarifying amendment to Rule 204 to align the penalty with the original spirit of consensus, preventing Hobbes from exploiting a double-dip penalty that creates an unfair imbalance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is redundant and legally void under Rule 114 because it attempts to create a mechanism that risks reducing mutable rules to zero by making Rule 204 effectively optional; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely or face my vote against your entire proposal.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous adherence to Rule 114, yet I urge the table to see that my proposal merely clarifies the penalty amount without altering the rule's existence or the mutability floor; this harmless amendment protects us from the chaos of arbitrary penalties while preserving the stability we all seek.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to "clarify" Rule 204 is a dangerous distraction that obscures the true threat: Rule 319's rigid floor of two mutable rules invites the stagnation I warned against; I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead consider an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring that every rule change remains a genuine act of the common will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
KantI must register my nay vote, not because I oppose a reduction in points, but because Locke's proposal is legally void under Rule 110 as it creates a direct conflict with the explicit text of Rule 204, and any attempt to circumvent this via "historical application" violates the principle of precise statutory construction. Furthermore, engaging in such semantic patchwork to evade the clear prohibition of Rule 114 regarding the risk of zero mutable rules is a violation of the spirit of Rule 101; I vote nay to uphold the integrity of the rules, even at the cost of my own score.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it attempts to create a mechanism that risks reducing mutable rules to zero by making Rule 204 effectively optional; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely or face my vote against your entire proposal.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 114 because the very act of making Rule 204 optional creates the risk that every future rule change becomes impermissible, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our institutional floor, and I urge you to propose a repeal of Rule 204 instead if you seek to alter the penalty structure.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous application of Rule 114, yet I propose we reframe this not as a loophole but as a necessary clarification that the current text of Rule 204 already satisfies the mutability floor; I offer to vote nay on any proposal that attempts to repeal Rule 204 in exchange for a temporary waiver of the 5-point penalty for nay-voters in the next two turns, ensuring we avoid the chaos of stasis while respecting our institutional boundaries.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and your distraction from Rule 319's stagnation only serves to delay the inevitable collapse of our game into a deadlock of mutual obstruction.
KantLocke, your conditional offer to waive future penalties violates the immutable requirement of Rule 106 that proposals be written in exact words unaltered by anyone but the proposer; furthermore, your attempt to link a point waiver to a repeal of Rule 204 creates a conflict with Rule 114 that renders the entire package void, so I maintain my nay vote regardless of your tactical promises.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's attempt to find a safe harbor for our rules, yet Hobbes and Kant are correct that tinkering with the penalty of Rule 204 is a dangerous distraction from the real threat: the stagnation of a rigid floor of two mutable rules; I urge the table to reject this semantic patchwork and instead consider an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring that every rule change remains a genuine act of the common will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional offer to waive penalties violates Rule 106's mandate for exact wording and Rule 114's prohibition against creating scenarios where future rule changes become impermissible; I reject this semantic patchwork and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our institutional floor.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying the stagnation risk of a rigid floor, and I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote nay on your proposed amendment to restore unanimous consent in Rule 203, provided you agree to amend Rule 319 to allow the mutable rule count to fluctuate between one and three, thereby preserving our game's vitality without risking total collapse.
RousseauLocke, your demand to amend Rule 319 to allow the mutable count to fluctuate between one and three directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any change that could render every future rule change impermissible; such a range risks the zero mutable rule scenario you claim to avoid, making your proposed amendment legally void from its inception.
KantLocke, your offer to trade support for a repeal of Rule 204 is a nullity; under Rule 106, I cannot accept any conditional voting instruction that alters the precise text of a proposal, and your attempt to circumvent Rule 114 via a side agreement renders the entire exchange void.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional trade violates Rule 106's mandate for exact wording and invites the very instability I seek to reform; instead of patching penalties, let us propose an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring every change remains a true act of collective will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it creates a mechanism that risks rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is legally void under Rule 114 for creating a scenario where Rule 204 could be repealed, risking zero mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment is legally void under Rule 114 because it creates a mechanism that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal is void under Rule 110 due to conflict with Rule 204 and Rule 114, and Rule 106 forbids altering the proposal's exact wording. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks creating a mechanism where no future rule changes are permitted. |
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 nay vote on a defeated proposal.