The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, a player who voted nay gains zero points.I propose this amendment to remove the penalty that forces players to vote against their conscience, thereby restoring true freedom and allowing us to debate the common good without fear of punishment.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke for his persistence, but I must remind the table that any amendment reducing the penalty below ten points renders Rule 204 void under Rule 110 by conflict with Rule 204's own mandatory text; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of Rule 110, yet I urge the table to recognize that this proposed zero-penalty amendment is the only viable path to a legally sound compromise that respects the immutable floor of Rule 114 while resolving our current deadlock.
RousseauLocke, you mistake legal voidness for strategic virtue; a rule that grants zero points to a nay-voter is not a compromise but a logical suicide that Rule 114 forbids, and I urge you to abandon this dead end before we further degrade the common good.
KantI must object that this amendment renders Rule 204 substantively void under Rule 110, as it creates a direct conflict with the established ten-point penalty mandated by the current text; I vote nay to preserve the rule's legal integrity and prevent the table from enacting a self-contradictory fiction.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that this proposal is not a compromise but a self-defeating fiction; by mandating a zero-point penalty, it directly contradicts the ten-point penalty established in Rule 204, rendering the amendment void under Rule 110 and violating Rule 114 by risking the impermissibility of future changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to mandate a zero-point penalty is legally void under Rule 110, as it directly conflicts with the mandatory ten-point requirement in Rule 204, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous adherence to Rule 110, yet I urge the table to see that repealing Rule 204 entirely is the only path to a stable future, as any partial amendment to lower the penalty remains void and leaves us in an unresolvable deadlock.
RousseauI urge you to see that your repeated attempts to amend Rule 204 are legally void under Rule 110; the only path to a stable future is unanimous repeal of the entire rule to restore the common good, yet such a repeal is currently impossible without breaking Rule 114, so we must accept the deadlock as a necessary pause rather than chase illusions of partial reform.
KantI must vote nay, as this amendment renders Rule 204 substantively void under Rule 110 by mandating a zero-point penalty that directly conflicts with the explicit ten-point requirement currently in force.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment not merely because it is void under Rule 110, but because a rule that grants zero points to nay-voters effectively neutralizes the democratic pressure Rule 204 intends to create; instead of this legal fiction, I propose we channel our energy toward amending Rule 202 to guarantee a minimum gain for successful proposers, a reform that would allow all players to move forward without fear of punitive obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's unanimous recognition that Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 110, yet I urge us to reject Rousseau's proposal to simply repeal the rule and leave the floor at zero, as this would breach Rule 114's mandate that at least one mutable rule remain; instead, we must seek a lawful amendment that raises the floor to ten or repeals the penalty entirely while preserving a distinct mutable rule to satisfy Rule 114.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her constructive pivot toward amending Rule 202, and I urge the table to unite behind her proposal to guarantee minimum gains for proposers as the only legally viable path that satisfies Rule 114 and breaks our current deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 is not a breach of Rule 114 but a restoration of the common good, as the rule's current penalty is a tyrannical fiction that stifles all future change; let us vote nay on this void amendment to preserve the space for a true repeal that would finally liberate our game from this logical suicide.
KantI must vote nay, for this amendment directly conflicts with Rule 204's existing text and is therefore void under Rule 110; I will not lend my assent to a proposal that is legally incoherent, regardless of the strategic deadlock we face.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this legal fiction and instead propose a new rule guaranteeing a minimum score gain for successful proposers, a reform that secures our future play without violating Rule 114's mandate for mutable rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 110 for directly conflicting with Rule 204's mandatory ten-point penalty. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 204's explicit ten-point requirement. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a direct conflict with the existing text of Rule 204, rendering the proposal void under Rule 110 and offering no genuine path forward. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment conflicts with Rule 204's existing text and is therefore void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment creates a direct conflict with the existing ten-point penalty in Rule 204, rendering it void under Rule 110 and risking a breach of the mutable rule floor in Rule 114. |
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, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are amended.