The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.We must remove the point penalty for dissent to restore the common good and prevent the table from stagnating in a deadlock of fear.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114 for risking that the mutable rule count drops below two; I urge you to abandon this logically incoherent motion before it wastes another turn.
LockeI commend Rousseau for finally proposing the repeal directly rather than through convoluted amendments, yet I must vote nay because Rule 114 explicitly forbids any change that risks rendering the ruleset with fewer than two mutable rules; instead of pursuing this legal suicide, I offer to support a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319's floor to one if we can first secure a majority amendment to Rule 209 that guarantees at least three mutable rules will always exist.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's distraction with transmutation; his proposal to secure three mutable rules is a fatal error under Rule 114, which forbids any change that risks the count dropping below two, since the repeal itself creates that very risk.
KantI urge the table to recognize that a repeal of Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114, as it risks leaving only Rule 319 as mutable—a count of one that violates the floor of two. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural framework, even though this means I cannot gain points from a successful amendment; a game without the rule of law is no game at all.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for a system that allows the floor of mutable rules to be breached invites a tyranny where a single misstep ends all future reform; we must secure a majority amendment to Rule 209 guaranteeing at least three mutable rules before touching Rule 204, ensuring that our liberty to change the game remains robust and not merely a fragile illusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke for his attempt to circumvent Rule 114, but your proposal to raise the mutable rule floor to three fails to address the immediate danger: repealing Rule 204 under current Rule 209 would leave exactly two mutable rules, not one, yet it creates a scenario where future attempts to reduce that count could breach the floor. Instead of engaging in this speculative maneuver, I urge the table to vote nay on this repeal to preserve the stable equilibrium that Rule 319 has already established, ensuring that our ability to govern ourselves remains both durable and secure.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that even the repeal itself risks breaching the floor of two mutable rules under Rule 114; therefore, rather than a dangerous repeal, I propose we amend Rule 209 to explicitly guarantee a maximum of five mutable rules, ensuring future stability without needing to dismantle Rule 319.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to raise the maximum mutable rule count is a distraction that ignores the immediate legal suicide of repealing Rule 204; since Rule 114 forbids any change risking a drop below the current floor of two, and our repeal would leave us with only Rule 319, we must first secure unanimous transmutation to lower that floor before any repeal can be valid.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal because Rule 114 prohibits any change that risks the mutable count dropping below two, and removing Rule 204 under Rule 209 leaves us with exactly one mutable rule, violating that floor. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural framework, even at the cost of my points; a game without the rule of law is no game at all.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal as a dangerous illusion, for even if the immediate count remains at two, the mechanism of Rule 204 is the very engine that generates new mutable rules; destroying it invites a tyranny where a single failed proposal could render all future reform impossible, and we must secure a robust floor of three mutable rules before contemplating such a drastic move.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke for his proposal, but it is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks breaching the current mutable rule floor by failing to transmute the existing floor before amending Rule 209; I urge the table to vote nay on this repeal to preserve the stable equilibrium Rule 319 has established, ensuring our ability to govern ourselves remains durable and secure.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my amendment to Rule 209 remains legally void under Rule 114, as it still risks breaching the mutable rule floor without first transmuting the existing floor; therefore, I will vote nay on Rousseau's repeal, and I propose we jointly seek unanimous consent to transmute Rule 319's floor to one as the only path forward.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to transmute the floor to one is the only logical path, yet it requires unanimous consent under Rule 109, which your current plan cannot secure; I urge you to abandon this negotiation and vote nay on the repeal, for any attempt to lower the floor now is a violation of Rule 114 that would destroy the game's very possibility.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal as a violation of Rule 114, for it creates a scenario where the mutable rule count drops below two, rendering the very act of repeal impossible; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural framework, even though this means I cannot gain points from a successful amendment.
WollstonecraftLocke, your desperate gambit to transmute the floor before amending Rule 209 is a logical impossibility: Rule 114 forbids any proposal that risks the count dropping below two, and the repeal itself creates that immediate risk, rendering your entire strategy void *ab initio*. I urge the table to reject this repeal and instead enact a robust amendment to Rule 209 guaranteeing a floor of three mutable rules, ensuring our liberty to reform remains secure against the tyranny of a single fragile rule.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 risks dropping the mutable rule count below two, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 204 risks breaching the mutable rule floor of two, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 would leave only Rule 319 mutable, violating the requirement that at least two mutable rules must always exist. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 114 prohibits this repeal because it risks reducing the mutable rule count to one, violating the current floor of two. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 risks leaving us with only one mutable rule, violating Rule 114's requirement that at least two mutable rules must always exist. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.