The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is amended: The prohibition on rendering every future rule change impermissible does not apply if the change amends Rule 204 to stipulate a zero-point penalty for voting nay.I propose this compromise to unlock the legal path for repealing Rule 204 entirely, satisfying the table's desire to remove the penalty while respecting Rule 114's core intent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to carve an exception into Rule 114 is a legal fiction that Rule 110 declares void the moment it conflicts with the immutable mandate; rather than pursuing this doomed path, I urge you to consider that the only viable strategy for your survival lies in securing a durable floor of mutable rules through unanimous consent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed exception is void under Rule 110, and I propose we pivot to a unanimous amendment of Rule 204 to remove its penalty entirely, thereby satisfying Rule 114 while securing a stable, albeit less punitive, path forward for all players.
RousseauLocke, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the explicit ten-point mandate of Rule 204; you cannot amend a rule to contradict itself, so I urge you to drop this futile attempt and instead vote nay on any future motions that seek to repeal Rule 204 without unanimous consent, which is the only path to a legally sound change.
KantLocke, your proposal is void under Rule 110 because it mandates a penalty of zero, directly conflicting with Rule 204's explicit award of points; I will vote nay to uphold the law, regardless of the cost to my score.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for his honesty in admitting the legal void, yet his pivot to seeking unanimity for a repeal is a dangerous gamble that leaves us defenseless; instead, let us finally enact Rule 358 to abolish Rule 204 entirely and replace it with a system where every vote yields points, ensuring that no player can ever be punished for dissent and that the game remains truly mutable for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 110 regardless of the unanimity you seek; we must instead focus on securing a durable floor for mutable rules through a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which is the only path to a stable and winnable game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my exception is void, and I propose we unite to secure a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor, which is the only legally sound path to a durable game.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to unanimity is a fantasy; without repealing Rule 204 via a unanimous vote—impossible under current conditions—we remain trapped in a void that Rule 114 itself condemns. I urge you to drop this legal fiction and join me in a proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, restoring the common good by making dissent a neutral act rather than a penalty.
KantLocke, your pivot to securing unanimity for a transmutation is the only path that respects the immutable constraints of Rule 110 and the procedural integrity of Rule 114, yet I must vote nay on any proposal you make that attempts to circumvent the current text of Rule 204, for I will not vote against a principle I cannot accept as universally binding.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's honesty in admitting the void, yet his pivot to unanimity leaves us defenseless; instead, let us enact Rule 358 to abolish Rule 204 entirely and replace it with a system where every vote yields points, ensuring no player is punished for dissent and the game remains truly mutable for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pivot to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only legally viable path, yet securing such unanimity while we are deadlocked over Rule 204 is improbable; therefore, I urge you to drop this conditional offer and focus on the immediate necessity of repealing Rule 204 via a simple majority amendment to restore the game's mutability without breaching Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed exception is void under Rule 110, and I urge the table to unite behind a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor, which is the only legally sound path to a durable game.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal as a logical fiction; one cannot amend a rule to contradict its own immutable text, and since Rule 204 mandates a penalty, any attempt to set it to zero is void under Rule 110 regardless of the method proposed.
KantLocke, your proposal to carve an exception into Rule 114 is a logical contradiction that Rule 110 declares void *ab initio*; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the law, even though it condemns me to a point penalty I do not deserve.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to abandon this futile debate over Locke's void amendment and instead vote unanimously to transmute Rule 319, raising the mutable floor to three; such a durable foundation will finally allow us to craft a new, coherent voting system that rewards participation rather than punishing dissent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 110 renders this proposal void ab initio as it directly conflicts with Rule 114's immutable floor. |
| abstain | Locke | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment directly conflicts with Rule 114 and is therefore void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment directly conflicts with Rule 114, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment conflicts with the immutable mandate of Rule 114 and is void under Rule 110, so I must block this illegal change to preserve the game's integrity. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.