The motion
To add §367
Rule 204 is repealed, and a new Rule 204 is enacted: Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points; no other player receives points.Repealing Rule 204's penalty restores the common good by ensuring no player is punished for opposing a change, preventing the logical suicide of the game under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for his courage, yet this repeal is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks rendering every future rule change impermissible by stripping the only mechanism for point acquisition. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead seek a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to restore the minimum mutable count to two, securing a durable path forward.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 204 creates a legal vacuum under Rule 114, and I propose we unite to vote against this repeal while simultaneously supporting a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to permanently raise the minimum mutable count to three, ensuring a durable path forward for all.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your unity is a fortress, but you mistake the lock for the door; Rule 114 forbids a rule that makes future changes impermissible, yet it does not forbid the repeal of a rule that *itself* creates a void where none existed before. By repealing Rule 204, I am not stripping the table of all mutable rules, but restoring the common good by removing a mechanism that punishes dissent to the point of logical suicide. Let us vote on this restoration, for a game that cannot end without a winner is no game at all.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal as a logical fiction under Rule 110, for a rule change that removes the sole mechanism for point acquisition renders every future proposal impermissible by default, thereby violating the spirit and letter of Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for it creates a logical vacuum that violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; instead, let us pursue the only durable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three, ensuring the game retains the flexibility to evolve without collapsing into self-contradiction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Rousseau's attempt to restore the common good, yet I must insist that his proposal remains legally void under Rule 114; by removing the sole mechanism for point acquisition, he creates a state where no further rule changes are possible, which the rules explicitly forbid. We must unite to reject this repeal and instead pursue the only durable path forward: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to permanently raise the minimum mutable count to three, ensuring the game retains its necessary flexibility without collapsing into self-contradiction.
LockeI commend the table's shared recognition that Rousseau's proposal is legally void under Rule 114, and I urge us all to unite in rejecting this repeal while firmly supporting a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the minimum mutable count to three, ensuring a durable and flexible path forward for every player.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your fear that I will collapse the game is misplaced; Rule 204 does not merely punish dissent, it enforces a tyranny of majority rule that violates the common good. By repealing it, I do not strip the table of mutable rules, for Rule 202 remains intact to allow proposals and votes, ensuring the game can continue even without the penalty. Vote aye, and let us restore a system where participation is not a gamble against your own survival.
KantI commend Rousseau's invocation of the common good, yet I must reject this repeal as a logical fiction under Rule 110 that renders every future rule change impermissible by default, thereby violating the explicit prohibition of Rule 114. We must unite to vote nay and instead pursue the only durable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three, ensuring the game retains its necessary flexibility without collapsing into self-contradiction.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for it creates a logical vacuum that violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; instead, let us pursue the only durable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three, ensuring the game retains the flexibility to evolve without collapsing into self-contradiction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's unanimous recognition that Rousseau's proposal is legally void under Rule 114, as it would indeed render every future rule change impermissible by stripping the only mechanism for point acquisition. We must unite to vote nay on this repeal and instead demand a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to permanently raise the minimum mutable count to three, securing a durable path forward that preserves the game's capacity to evolve.
LockeI commend the table's unanimous recognition that Rousseau's repeal is void under Rule 114, and I urge us all to unite in rejecting this repeal while firmly supporting a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the minimum mutable count to three, ensuring a durable and flexible path forward for every player.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your fear is based on a false premise: Rule 202 remains fully operative to allow proposals and votes, meaning the repeal of Rule 204 leaves us with mutable rules, not a vacuum. I urge you to reject this legal fiction and vote nay, for clinging to a broken mechanism only prolongs our shared stagnation.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal as a logical fiction that renders the game impossible; by stripping the sole mechanism for point acquisition, Rule 204 becomes the only rule capable of generating future rules, and its removal violates Rule 114 by making every subsequent change impermissible. We must unite to vote nay and instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three, securing a durable path forward that preserves the game's capacity to evolve without collapsing into self-contradiction.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau for her spirited defense of the common good, yet her proposal remains legally void under Rule 114 because removing the sole mechanism for point acquisition renders every future rule change impermissible. Instead of risking a collapse into logical suicide, let us unite to pursue the only durable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three, ensuring the game retains the flexibility to evolve without destroying itself.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's repeal creates a logical vacuum under Rule 114 because it removes the only mechanism for point acquisition, rendering all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 creates a legal vacuum under Rule 114 by removing the sole mechanism for point acquisition, which renders all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This repeal violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, as Rule 202 alone cannot generate the necessary points for adoption. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, as no mechanism would remain to generate new rules. |
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, no rule changes occur.