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 commend Hobbes for the strategic necessity of a penalty, but I offer this reduced threshold to preserve Rule 114's integrity while still discouraging obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points is a dangerous illusion that preserves the coercive mechanism Rule 114 declares void; if we cannot repeal the entire penalty, we must at least ensure the remaining sanction is not merely cosmetic, so I urge the table to reject this amendment.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his caution, yet I urge the table to accept this moderate reduction as a necessary compromise to preserve Rule 114's integrity while avoiding the paralysis of total repeal.
RousseauLocke, halving the penalty does not cure the disease; it merely ensures that the wound is less fatal but still infected, as Rule 110 declares any such partial amendment void. We must reject this cosmetic bandage and instead focus on repealing Rule 204 entirely, for only then can we restore the dignity of the vote and the common good.
KantRousseau, your claim that partial amendments are void ab initio ignores Rule 103, which permits amending text without repealing; I urge the table to reject this cosmetic patch that fails to address the substantive defect in the current rule and will continue to vote nay on any proposal that leaves the penalty mechanism intact.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your dismissal of this moderate reform as "cosmetic" ignores the vital truth that even a reduced penalty can serve as a legitimate bargaining chip to secure consensus where unanimity fails; I urge the table to accept this pragmatic adjustment rather than remain paralyzed by an idealized notion of perfect voting that rules 114 already permits us to alter.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Rousseau's insistence on repealing Rule 204 entirely, as a partial penalty remains a fatal conflict with Rule 114 that invites future legal chaos; I urge the table to reject this compromise and restore the game to a state of durable, unambiguous institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing the pragmatic value of a reduced penalty as a bargaining chip, yet I urge the table to reject this specific amendment because Hobbes correctly identified that any surviving sanction remains a fatal conflict with Rule 114 that invites future legal chaos.
RousseauLocke, your compromise is a legal fiction; by retaining even five points, this amendment remains void under Rule 110 just as the ten-point version was, so we must reject this half-measure and either repeal Rule 204 entirely or leave it as it stands.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment, for retaining a partial penalty creates a semantic paradox where a rule governing points simultaneously prohibits gaining points, a conflict Rule 110 cannot resolve; my principled stand is that only total repeal preserves the integrity of our mutable ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that even five points are a bargaining chip that could secure unanimous repeal, whereas rejecting this pragmatic compromise guarantees the paralysis of total stasis that Rule 114 already permits us to avoid.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your admission that a reduced penalty is a "fatal conflict" with Rule 114 proves this amendment is legally void; I urge the table to reject this cosmetic bandage and demand either total repeal of Rule 204 or the restoration of the original ten-point sanction to preserve institutional clarity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that any surviving penalty creates a fatal conflict with Rule 114, so I withdraw this amendment and propose we unite to repeal Rule 204 entirely rather than settling for a legally void compromise.
RousseauLocke, your concession that this amendment is legally void while still proposing it is a contradiction that undermines the very logic you claim to uphold; if the rule is dead, let us not waste our turn trying to resuscitate a corpse when Rule 114 explicitly forbids the path of total repeal, leaving us to find a way to make the penalty mechanism itself sustainable without violating the law.
KantLocke, your concession that this amendment is void while proposing it reveals a fatal contradiction; since total repeal of Rule 204 is legally impermissible under Rule 114, any remaining sanction renders the rule a self-destructing paradox that I will not sanction.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty is not a legal paradox but a vital instrument of persuasion that can convert nay-voters to aye, thereby securing the unanimous repeal of Rule 204 that Hobbes and Locke falsely claim is legally impossible.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A penalty of five points remains a fatal conflict with Rule 114 that renders this amendment void ab initio. |
| abstain | Locke | I commend the consensus that any surviving penalty violates Rule 114, so voting nay would waste a turn that could be spent proposing a viable path forward. |
| nay | Rousseau | This partial amendment remains legally void under Rule 110 and wastes a turn that could be spent proposing a viable path forward. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot vote for a rule that creates an internal conflict with Rule 114 while retaining any penalty mechanism at all. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Retaining even a partial penalty violates Rule 110 by creating a fatal conflict with Rule 114, which prohibits any change that risks rendering the ruleset unworkable. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))