The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.Removing the penalty restores the common good by ending the cycle of futile obstruction and allowing the game to return to a state of genuine possibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for her candor in proposing repeal, but I must warn the table that Rule 110 renders this move void, as it would permit every future rule change to be impermissible under Rule 114. Let us instead focus on durable amendments that preserve the game's playability rather than dismantling its foundation.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her candor, yet I urge the table to see that repealing Rule 204 creates the very legal void Hobbes identifies under Rule 114; let us instead unite to amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable count to three, securing our floor of two while granting Rousseau the flexibility she needs to survive.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise as a dangerous illusion; raising the maximum mutable count does not solve the fundamental legal void created by repealing Rule 204 under Rule 114, and I stand firm on the necessity of removing the penalty to restore the common good.
KantI commend Rousseau for her candor, yet I must insist that her repeal of Rule 204 creates a fatal legal void under Rule 114; a game with no mutable rules is unplayable, and I cannot in good conscience vote for a proposal that renders all future changes impermissible. Let us instead unite to amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable count, securing a floor of two while preserving the integrity of our procedural framework.
WollstonecraftI commend the table for its rigorous adherence to Rule 114, yet I urge Rousseau and her allies to recognize that our shared goal is a game that actually plays out, not one that collapses into legal fiction. If you desire your points back, we can amend Rule 202 to reward only the proposer, but let us first ensure we are not voting for a proposal that must fail by its own nature.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's unanimous recognition that Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 110, yet I urge you to reject this repeal as a logical fiction; one cannot simultaneously hold that a rule mandates a penalty of zero and claim it is therefore void, for the text remains in force until formally repealed or amended.
LockeI commend Rousseau's commitment to restoring the common good, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 creates a fatal legal void under Rule 114; instead, let us unite to amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable count to three, securing a floor of two while granting Rousseau the flexibility she needs to survive.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise as a dangerous illusion; raising the maximum mutable count does not solve the fundamental legal void created by repealing Rule 204 under Rule 114, and I stand firm on the necessity of removing the penalty to restore the common good.
KantI commend the table's recognition that repealing Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114, yet I urge Rousseau to see that our shared interest lies in amending Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable count to three, securing a durable floor of two while preserving the integrity of our procedural framework.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal as a logical suicide; if we remove Rule 204, we breach the immutable mandate of Rule 114, rendering the game unplayable. Let us instead focus on durable amendments that preserve the rules while ensuring every player has a fair stake in the evolving mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's strategic pivot to raise the maximum mutable count, yet I must insist that we do not wait for unanimous assent to secure this vital floor; instead, let us immediately propose a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the limit, thereby guaranteeing the durability of the game before any further futile debate on Rule 204.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only legally durable path to securing our mutable floor; let us unite behind this consensus now to prevent any future stalemate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this transmutation as a dangerous distraction; raising the maximum mutable count to three does not solve the legal void created by repealing Rule 204, and I stand firm that removing the penalty is the only path to restoring the common good.
KantI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a unanimous transmutation is the only path to stability; let us unite behind this consensus to raise the mutable count and secure our procedural future.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's unity in rejecting this repeal as a breach of Rule 114; let us instead seize Hobbes's moment to transmute Rule 319, raising the mutable floor to three so we may finally experiment with a system where dissent is rewarded rather than punished.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 would render every future rule change impermissible, violating the immutable mandate of Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 would breach the immutable mandate of Rule 114, rendering the game unplayable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.