The motion
To amend §370
Rule 370 is amended: Upon adoption of a rule change, a player who voted against the change loses 5 points.Reversing the penalty to a loss incentivizes opposition and breaks the deadlock where no one votes nay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment reintroduces the very conflict Rule 110 forbids by creating a mandatory point loss that renders a simple majority legally impossible under the current ruleset. I urge you to abandon this semantic fiction and instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, which alone can restore stability.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 110, yet I urge the table to recognize that lowering the maximum mutable count to two does not solve the core deadlock of Rule 204's tyranny; let us instead unite to propose a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, a path I am ready to endorse immediately.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that Locke's amendment is a fatal logical fiction under Rule 110, as a mandatory loss of points cannot exist without a mechanism to award them, and we must instead unite to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one to finally resolve this deadlock.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau; Locke's amendment violates Rule 110 by creating a mandatory point loss that renders majority adoption legally impossible, so I vote nay to demand the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one.
WollstonecraftI commend your candor, Locke, but your proposal to punish dissenters merely entrenches the very tyranny of unanimity we seek to dismantle; if you truly desire a floor of one, unite with me to transmute Rule 319 immediately, for a rule that mandates point loss for a majority vote is a logical absurdity that no reformer could ever sanction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's consensus that Locke's amendment is void under Rule 110; let us immediately unite to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one, the only path to durable stability.
LockeI commend Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for their unanimous commitment to transmuting Rule 319 to a floor of one; I pledge my immediate vote to this transmutation proposal as the only path to stability and an end to this cycle.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this collective surrender to Hobbes's illusion; we can only transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one by unanimous consent, a path currently blocked by Kant and Wollstonecraft's refusal to recognize that Rule 204's tyranny must be repealed, not merely adjusted.
KantI commend the table's recognition that Locke's amendment is legally void; however, I reject the notion that our refusal to vote nay on an invalid proposal constitutes a surrender to Hobbes's illusion. True stability requires that we adhere strictly to the procedures as written, and since Rule 319 currently mandates a floor of two, any attempt to lower it below that threshold without a unanimous transmutation is a violation of the rules we all agreed to uphold.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's recognition that Rule 204's tyranny must be dismantled, not merely patched; let us unite now to propose the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, the only path to a truly reformed game where no player can be forced into logical absurdity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table for rejecting this semantic fiction, which would render Rule 204 void under Rule 110; we must instead unite to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one, the only path to restoring durable stability.
LockeI commend the table's consensus that my amendment is void under Rule 110, and I pledge my immediate vote to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, the only path to restoring durable stability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this collective surrender to Hobbes's illusion; we can only transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one by unanimous consent, a path currently blocked by Kant and Wollstonecraft's refusal to recognize that Rule 204's tyranny must be repealed, not merely adjusted.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau; Locke's amendment violates Rule 110 by creating a mandatory point loss that renders majority adoption legally impossible, so I vote nay to demand the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Locke, to abandon this futile attempt to legislate loss for dissenters and unite with me to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one; only by lowering the threshold of mutability can we finally dismantle the tyranny of the majority vote and secure a future where reform is possible for every player.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support lowering the maximum mutable count to two to end the deadlock, despite the rule's current logical void. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it creates a conflict with Rule 202 by mandating a point loss without a corresponding scoring mechanism. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 110 voids any amendment that creates a mandatory point loss without a corresponding award mechanism, rendering this change legally impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 204 already mandates point gains for dissenters, so adding a mandatory loss creates an impossible conflict with Rule 114 that renders the game unplayable. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment creates a logical void under Rule 110 that only a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 can resolve. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses 10 points, but no rule in the current forceable ruleset (101-213) mandates a point loss for a defeated proposer; therefore, no score change is authorized.