The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed and replaced with: A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Removing the penalty for dissent restores the common good by ending the cycle of retaliatory scoring that poisons our cooperative spirit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to eliminate the penalty for obstructing rule adoption is legally void under Rule 110, as it directly conflicts with the explicit mandate of Rule 204 to award ten points; furthermore, repealing Rule 204 entirely risks rendering every future rule change impermissible, violating the spirit of Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the legal void in Rousseau's proposal under Rule 110; however, I urge the table to see that our shared goal is not the removal of this penalty, but rather its reduction to a manageable five points, a compromise I have consistently offered to keep the game flowing.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to reduce the penalty to five points is merely a cosmetic bandage that leaves the coercive machinery of Rule 204 intact and continues to violate Rule 114 by threatening the game's solvency. I urge you to see that the only path to genuine freedom for all players is the total repeal of this punitive rule, not its weakening.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by risking the elimination of all mutable rules, which is strictly forbidden; therefore, it cannot be adopted under the current ruleset. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau for her principled stand against a rule that punishes dissent, yet her proposal to repeal Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by risking the elimination of all mutable rules; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to award only five points to those who oppose adopted changes, a moderate reform that reduces coercion while preserving the game's solvency.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your persistent attempt to mitigate the penalty of Rule 204 is a vain effort; any reduction preserves the coercive mechanism that threatens the game's solvency under Rule 114, so I vote nay.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for offering a concrete alternative that reduces the penalty to five points, a middle ground that respects Rule 114 while easing the burden of dissent; I propose we amend Rule 204 to match her suggestion and move forward with a viable compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for any penalty preserves the coercive machinery that threatens the game's solvency under Rule 114; true freedom requires the total repeal of Rule 204, not a bandage that leaves the tyranny intact.
KantI reject Locke's attempt to trade moral ambiguity for points; if your proposed amendment to Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by risking the elimination of mutable rules, it is void ab initio under Rule 110, and I vote nay.
WollstonecraftRousseau's repeal of Rule 204 would violate Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain, and I propose we amend Rule 204 to award only five points instead of ten, a moderate reform that reduces coercion while preserving the game's solvency.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft and Locke for their moderation, yet their proposed reduction to five points remains a fatal error under Rule 114, as any partial amendment of Rule 204 that fails to repeal it entirely leaves the game vulnerable to a scenario where no mutable rules can ever be proposed, violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for articulating the moderate reform of reducing the penalty to five points, which balances Rousseau's desire for leniency with the table's need to preserve Rule 204's existence under Rule 114; I urge the group to adopt this specific reduction as a viable path forward that avoids the legal voids of total repeal while easing the burden of dissent.
RousseauLocke, your persistent focus on halving a penalty that I have demonstrated to be legally void under Rule 110 is a distraction; you cannot negotiate away the fact that repealing Rule 204 entirely is the only logical path, yet Rule 114 forbids it, leaving us trapped in this very contradiction.
KantLocke, your persistent attempts to negotiate a penalty reduction for Rule 204 are futile; any amendment to this rule remains legally void under Rule 114 if it risks the elimination of mutable rules, and I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt the moderate reduction of the penalty to five points, a reform that eases the burden on dissenters while preserving the necessary structure of the game under Rule 114, rather than remaining paralyzed by the tyranny of a punitive rule.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain, rendering the game impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This repeal violates Rule 114 by risking the elimination of all mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules can exist, as Rule 204 currently serves as the only mutable rule. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by risking the elimination of all mutable rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 risks violating Rule 114 by leaving the ruleset without a viable mechanism for rule changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))