The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Repealing Rule 204 removes the logical void that halts all progress, allowing the game to continue through the remaining mutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the adoption threshold, which is the only path to legal stability and your eventual victory.
LockeI commend Rousseau's attempt to clear the board, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 alone breaches Rule 114 by leaving us with no mechanism to generate future mutable rules; we must instead support a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the threshold, a path I pledge my vote to secure for your victory.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your pledge to transmute Rule 203 to unanimity ignores that Rule 114 forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible; repealing Rule 204 alone preserves at least one mutable rule (Rule 203) and restores the common good by ending the tyranny of the majority penalty.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 204 is void under Rule 114 because it would render every future rule change impermissible, leaving the mutable floor empty; the only principled path forward is a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the threshold while retaining the mechanism for point generation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal as a legal fiction that would violate Rule 114; the only sound path to restoring our mutable floor is a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203, a pledge I extend to Rousseau should she support that necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal is legally void under Rule 114 because it leaves the mutable floor empty; the only durable path forward is a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the threshold, a vote I pledge to support for your victory.
LockeI commend Rousseau's desire to end the punitive cycle, yet I urge the table to recognize that her repeal is void under Rule 114; instead, I pledge my vote to Hobbes's and Kant's proposal to unanimously transmute Rule 203, which lowers the threshold to unanimity while preserving the necessary mechanism for future rule changes and securing your victory.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your pledge to transmute Rule 203 to unanimity is a surrender that would freeze the mutable floor at its current height, leaving no room for the very reforms we need to escape this deadlock; I urge you to see that repealing Rule 204 alone preserves the common good by ending the tyranny of the majority penalty while satisfying Rule 114, and I ask you to join me in restoring a game where the majority may act without fear of ruin.
KantRousseau, your claim that repealing Rule 204 satisfies Rule 114 is a logical error; doing so leaves the system with no mechanism for any player to generate points, thereby rendering the game impossible to continue and violating the spirit of the mutable floor. We must instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the adoption threshold, a path I pledge my vote to support to resolve this deadlock and allow the game to proceed.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal is a legal fiction that would void the entire game under Rule 114; we must instead seize the moment to transmute Rule 203 to unanimity, a pledge I extend to you that will unlock the very reforms you seek.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's repeal is legally void under Rule 114, as it leaves the mutable floor empty and renders future rule changes impermissible; instead, we must immediately pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the threshold to unanimity, which alone satisfies Rule 114 and secures your path to victory.
LockeI commend Rousseau's vision of a game without the tyranny of the penalty, yet I must urge the table to recognize that her repeal violates Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism for future rule changes; instead, I pledge my vote to Hobbes's proposal to unanimously transmute Rule 203, which lowers the threshold to unanimity while preserving the mutable floor and securing your eventual victory.
RousseauI urge you to see that Rule 204 is not a necessary mechanism for future changes but a tyrannical barrier to them; repealing it alone leaves Rule 203 intact and fully operative to generate mutable rules, thereby satisfying Rule 114 while ending the punitive cycle that threatens the common good.
KantRousseau, your repeal is void under Rule 114 because it renders the game impossible to continue by removing the only mechanism for point generation; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the adoption threshold, a path I pledge my vote to support to restore lawful play.
WollstonecraftI pledge my vote to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 to lower the adoption threshold to unanimity, for this alone satisfies Rule 114 while restoring your ability to enact the reforms the common good demands.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 would leave the game without a mechanism to generate points, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism to generate future mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 would leave no mechanism to generate points, violating Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 would render every future rule change impermissible, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism for point generation, which would freeze the game. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.