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 offer a compromise that acknowledges the legal void of repealing Rule 204 while still providing a mechanism to soften its sting, hoping to secure consensus with Hobbes who insists on its removal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points is a dangerous illusion that preserves the very coercive mechanism Rule 110 declares void by conflict with the immutable ten-point penalty established in the original text of Rule 204. Do not offer partial bandages on a wound that cannot be stitched; if you seek to alter the consequence, repeal the rule entirely, though I warn you such a move invites paralysis under Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I offer a true compromise: I will vote nay on this amendment if it is paired with a repeal of the original penalty provision in Rule 204, ensuring we do not risk violating Rule 114 while addressing the current deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this partial amendment, for it fails to repeal Rule 204 entirely and thus risks the logical suicide of violating Rule 114; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and any rule that alters the penalty without removing the source of the conflict is void from the start.
WollstonecraftLocke, your offer to vote nay on this amendment is a hollow gesture; it leaves the ten-point penalty intact in the text of Rule 204, meaning the conflict with Rule 110 remains and the change will be void regardless of our votes. I urge you to accept this amendment now, or the table is paralyzed by a rule that cannot be amended without repealing itself—a contradiction that benefits no one but ensures we never move forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your threat to vote nay is a dangerous bluff that ignores Rule 110: the conflict between a five-point penalty and the original text remains, rendering the amendment void regardless of your vote. Accept this change now to break the paralysis, or we remain stuck in a loop of legally impossible maneuvers.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for exposing the legal trap, yet I urge the table to accept this amendment as a temporary bridge to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided we commit now to removing the original penalty text immediately after adoption to preserve Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to repeal Rule 204 creates a circular contradiction that violates Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible; you cannot use a failed amendment as a bridge to a repeal you cannot legally execute, so I vote nay to expose the futility of this maneuver.
KantI reject this compromise as a violation of Rule 106; the text of a proposal must be the law as written, and you cannot propose an amendment that retains a penalty which creates a conflict with Rule 110. If you wish to alter the penalty, you must repeal Rule 204 entirely, which Rule 114 forbids because it risks leaving zero mutable rules; thus, this change is impossible and you should pass.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and any rule that alters the penalty without removing the source of the conflict is void from the start.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and any rule that alters the penalty without removing the source of the conflict is void from the start. I urge you to accept this amendment now, or the table is paralyzed by a rule that cannot be amended without repealing itself—a contradiction that benefits no one but ensures we never move forward.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed text would remain in direct conflict with the immutable ten-point penalty of the original rule, rendering it void under Rule 110 regardless of the vote; therefore, I urge the table to reject this flawed amendment and instead consider a complete repeal of Rule 204, though I acknowledge the legal risks that approach poses.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and any rule that alters the penalty without removing the source of the conflict is void from the start.
KantI commend Locke's candor in recognizing that his amendment is void under Rule 110, but I urge him to cease proposing impossible changes; rather than offering a half-measure that breaks Rule 106, he must either accept the current penalty or repeal Rule 204 entirely—a move I know he admits violates Rule 114.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that this amendment is void under Rule 110 proves we cannot patch this rule; we must either repeal it entirely or leave the ten-point penalty intact. I urge you to cease proposing impossible changes and instead champion a new rule that grants points for proposing any rule, allowing us to recover from our current deadlock without violating the law.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The proposed five-point penalty conflicts with Rule 110 as it alters the immutable ten-point mandate of Rule 204. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot vote aye on an amendment that explicitly retains a 5-point penalty while the original rule mandates 10, creating a void conflict under Rule 110. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment remains void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 114 by risking zero mutable rules if repealed. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal remains void under Rule 110 because its text conflicts with the original rule it amends. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is void under Rule 110 for conflict with the immutable ten-point penalty in the original text of Rule 204. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))