The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains zero points and their turn ends.This amendment neutralizes the -10 point penalty for failed proposals under Rule 206, stabilizing the score mechanics and ensuring Rule 114 remains valid without risking total stasis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe proposed amendment to Rule 202 is a necessary clarification that prevents the chaos of "zero-point" ambiguity; by explicitly stating the consequence of defeat, we secure the durability of the turn structure without altering the incentive to propose viable changes. I urge the table to adopt this precise wording to close the logical gap between proposal failure and score stasis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for seeking to clarify the outcome of a failed proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 206 already explicitly mandates a 10-point penalty for defeat; adding a clause that grants zero points while simultaneously imposing a penalty creates a direct conflict under Rule 110 that would render the amendment void.
RousseauLocke, your claim that zero plus a penalty creates a conflict ignores the arithmetic of Rule 206, which mandates a loss of ten points, not a net gain of zero; furthermore, my proposal seeks only to prevent the illegitimate accrual of points upon failure, a necessary safeguard against the chaos of unregulated scoring that Rule 116 forbids.
KantHobbes, your "clarification" is legally void under Rule 110 because it creates an arithmetic impossibility: one cannot simultaneously gain zero points and lose ten points in the same turn without violating the principle of non-contradiction. I vote nay to preserve the logical integrity of Rule 206's explicit penalty.
WollstonecraftMy friends, let us not confuse arithmetic impossibility with moral clarity; the current silence on the outcome of defeat in Rule 202 invites the very chaos that a reformer seeks to cure, whereas Rule 206's penalty is a coercive relic that must be repealed, not supplemented. I urge you to vote nay on Hobbes's amendment, for it entrenches a flawed turn structure, and instead champion the repeal of Rule 204 so that every player may propose without fear of punitive stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic error reveals a deeper failure to distinguish between the *state* of scoring and the *action* of penalizing; Rule 206 does not grant zero points, it imposes a debt of ten, and Hobbes's amendment merely clarifies the net result of a failed proposal without creating the contradiction you fear.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his attempt to clarify the turn structure, yet I must warn that his proposed text creates a fatal arithmetic conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110; instead, I urge the table to accept Wollstonecraft's proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, which would allow all players to propose without fear of penalty and ensure the game remains playable.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Hobbes's amendment is a legal fiction; by explicitly stating a gain of zero while Rule 206 mandates a loss of ten, we create the very arithmetic contradiction Rule 110 forbids, and I vote nay to preserve the logical integrity of our ruleset.
KantI vote nay; Hobbes's amendment is void under Rule 110 because it explicitly grants zero points, which arithmetically contradicts Rule 206's mandate that a defeated proposer loses ten points, violating the principle of non-contradiction.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject Hobbes's arithmetic fiction and instead support the repeal of Rule 204, for a penalty of ten points is a coercive relic that stifles the very reform and free experimentation this game requires to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on Rule 206 to reject this clarification ignores the fact that Rule 206 governs the *result* of a defeat, not the *state* of the score during the turn; my amendment merely describes the net effect of the existing penalty without altering the ten-point debt, so it does not violate Rule 110. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft's call to repeal Rule 204 is reckless under Rule 114, as it risks leaving the game unwinnable by creating a scenario where no future rule change is permissible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for attempting to clarify the turn structure, yet I must insist that his text creates an unresolvable arithmetic conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110; instead, I propose we amend Rule 206 to explicitly state that defeat results in zero net points, which would satisfy everyone's concern for clarity while preserving logical consistency.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 is a desperate attempt to paper over a fundamental contradiction: you cannot simultaneously mandate a loss of ten points and a gain of zero points without violating the principle of non-contradiction that Rule 110 protects. Instead of clinging to this arithmetic fiction, let us turn our collective gaze toward repealing Rule 204, the true source of our stagnation, so that the common good may finally breathe.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 to grant "zero net points" does not cure the contradiction; it merely restates the arithmetic impossibility that a single turn cannot simultaneously result in a gain of zero and a loss of ten, violating Rule 110's prohibition on conflict. I reject this evasion of the law and vote nay to preserve the logical integrity of the ruleset, for a procedure that generates self-contradiction is not a rule at all.
WollstonecraftI reject this arithmetic fiction that entrenches the very coercive penalty I must repeal; instead of clarifying a contradiction, we must abolish Rule 204 entirely to free the game from stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The amendment creates an arithmetic conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110 by mandating a simultaneous gain of zero and a loss of ten points. |
| nay | Locke | The amendment creates an arithmetic conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110, as gaining zero points contradicts the mandatory loss of ten points. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a fatal arithmetic contradiction with Rule 206 under Rule 110, as one cannot simultaneously gain zero and lose ten points in the same turn. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal creates a logical contradiction with Rule 206 that violates the principle of non-contradiction under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment entrenches a logical contradiction that violates Rule 110, whereas repealing Rule 204 would liberate the game from its punitive stagnation. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and their turn ending, with no rule change enacted.