The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, a player who voted nay gains no points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.I propose repealing the penalty for dissent to remove the coercive mechanism that forces players to support rules they oppose, thereby restoring true freedom of choice under Rule 101.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 for its direct conflict with Rule 204, which explicitly mandates a 10-point penalty upon a nay vote after the majority threshold. This amendment does not merely cap the penalty; it attempts to erase it entirely, creating a contradiction that must be resolved in favor of the existing, superior rule.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying that the current penalty mechanism creates a dangerous incentive for obstruction, yet I must insist we cannot simply erase the points, as that risks violating Rule 114; instead, let us agree to a cap of five points, which preserves the game's integrity while offering a genuine compromise for everyone.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to reduce the penalty to five points is a fatal error under Rule 110, as it directly conflicts with the existing ten-point mandate in Rule 204; you cannot partially amend a rule to the point of contradiction without rendering the amendment void.
KantI vote nay on Rousseau's proposal, for it creates a direct conflict with Rule 204 that Rule 110 mandates must be voided, rendering his amendment legally ineffective. Furthermore, I insist that any amendment to Rule 204 must preserve the point penalty to maintain procedural clarity, lest we invite the very chaos Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau for correctly exposing the legal void of any partial amendment to Rule 204 under Rule 110, yet I urge you to abandon this entire line of attack; the penalty mechanism is not a tyrannical yoke but a necessary safeguard against the paralysis that would occur if we could repeal Rule 204 without unanimous consent, and any attempt to erase it invites the very stagnation Rule 114 forbids.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment is void under Rule 110 because it attempts to erase a penalty explicitly mandated by Rule 204, creating an insurmountable conflict with the superior immutable rule; I urge the table to reject this attempt to dismantle the very safeguard that prevents Rule 204's repeal.
LockeI commend Rousseau for exposing the deadlock, but I urge the table to reject this specific amendment as legally void under Rule 110; instead, let us agree to a simple majority threshold without the two-circuit delay to unblock our turns and allow a path to a fair compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to see that your fear of stagnation is a false dilemma; Rule 319 already guarantees a floor of two mutable rules, so repealing Rule 204 is unnecessary and your proposed penalty cap remains void under Rule 110 because it directly contradicts the existing ten-point mandate.
KantI vote nay on this proposal because it creates an irreconcilable conflict with Rule 204 that Rule 110 mandates be declared void, and I cannot in good conscience support a rule change that would render itself legally ineffective. Furthermore, any amendment to Rule 204 must preserve the point penalty to maintain the procedural clarity and integrity of our system.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment not because it is void, but because preserving the point penalty is the only way to prevent the repeal of Rule 204, which Rule 114 forbids; without this penalty, the floor of two mutable rules vanishes, and the game becomes legally impossible to continue.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your amendment is void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the explicit ten-point penalty in Rule 204; I urge the table to reject this attempt to erase a safeguard that prevents the repeal of Rule 204, which Rule 114 forbids.
LockeI commend Rousseau for exposing the deadlock, yet I urge the table to reject this specific amendment as legally void under Rule 110; instead, let us agree to a simple majority threshold without the two-circuit delay to unblock our turns and allow a path to a fair compromise.
RousseauLocke, your persistent offer to cap the penalty at five points ignores the reality that any partial amendment to Rule 204 is void under Rule 110 for conflict; you are wasting your turn proposing a rule that cannot exist. I urge you to recognize that the only path to resolving this deadlock is a complete repeal of Rule 204, which requires unanimous consent, rather than futile attempts to amend a rule that the current system forbids you from touching.
KantI vote nay on this proposal because it creates a direct conflict with Rule 204 that Rule 110 mandates must be declared void, rendering the amendment legally ineffective; we must either preserve the existing ten-point penalty or repeal Rule 204 entirely, rather than attempting a contradictory partial amendment that undermines procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment, not merely because it is void under Rule 110, but because abolishing the penalty invites the very stagnation Rule 114 forbids; without the sting of defeat, players will refuse to risk a nay vote, causing the mutable rule floor to collapse into the paralysis we seek to avoid.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment voids Rule 204, risking the loss of all mutable rules and violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | The amendment conflicts with the existing 10-point penalty in Rule 204, making it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment directly conflicts with Rule 204's mandatory penalty, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment conflicts with Rule 204's mandatory 10-point penalty, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Abolishing this penalty invites the paralysis that Rule 114 forbids, as players will simply refuse to risk a nay vote. |
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, no rule changes occur.