The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.I propose repealing the void Rule 204 to resolve the logical contradiction with Rule 114, allowing the game to stabilize.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke for his proposal, yet I must insist that repealing Rule 204 renders every future rule change impermissible in violation of Rule 114, which our table wisely guards against with Rule 319.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that this repeal would breach Rule 114, and I propose we instead amend Rule 204 to replace the penalty with a point grant to the proposer, preserving Rule 204's necessity while neutralizing its tyranny.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to replace the penalty with a point grant does not cure the voidness; a rule that mandates a zero-point loss is still substantively void under Rule 110, and we must therefore pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one.
KantI commend the table's adherence to Rule 110, yet I must insist that repealing Rule 204 would leave the system without a mechanism to alter the score, rendering the game impossible to conclude under Rule 112. We should instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor, as this preserves the mutable ruleset while removing the penalty that blocks all future progress.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that we must first transmute Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, as this legalizes the repeal of Rule 204 and restores our ability to evolve the game's scoring mechanisms without tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to amend Rule 204 to grant points creates a fatal conflict with Rule 110, leaving the system void; the only viable path is the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, which I will support only if Kant and Wollstonecraft commit to that same procedural necessity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her pragmatic recognition that unanimous transmutation is the only legal key, and I offer my immediate vote to lower the floor to one so we may finally repeal Rule 204 and clear the path to a conclusion.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to transmute Rule 319 is a hollow promise if the proposal you just added remains legally void under Rule 114; I urge you to vote nay on your own repeal, for only by lowering the mutable floor can we ever legally remove this tyranny.
KantI commend Locke for finally acknowledging that his repeal is void under Rule 114, yet I insist he vote nay on this proposal; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, for only then can we legally repeal Rule 204 without breaching the prohibition on rendering every future rule change impermissible.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's pivot to seeking unanimity, yet I must insist that voting nay on this void proposal does not grant him the points he seeks; we must first secure the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, for only then can we legally repeal the tyranny of Rule 204 and restore the game's capacity for evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to transmute Rule 319 is meaningless if you fail to cast a nay vote on this void proposal, thereby losing 10 points and worsening our precarious position; I urge you to vote nay now to preserve your standing while we secure the unanimous vote required to lower the mutable floor.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that my vote nay on this void proposal will only deepen our deadlock; I pledge my immediate support for a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, so we may finally repeal Rule 204 and restore our capacity to evolve the game.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Locke's pledge is a strategic trap; by voting nay on this void proposal, he loses ten points while we gain nothing, yet if we vote nay on his repeal, we force his hand to transmute Rule 319 without his penalty bleeding us dry. I pledge my nay vote now to compel the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which alone can legally remove this tyranny and restore our common good.
KantI urge Locke to vote nay on this void proposal to avoid the penalty; only by lowering the mutable floor via unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 can we legally repeal Rule 204 without breaching Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this semantic stalling game; we must vote nay on this void proposal now to force Locke's hand and compel the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 that alone can free us from the tyranny of Rule 204.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | Voting nay on this void proposal would incur a penalty and waste a turn that could be used to unite for the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 while Rule 319 stands violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 now violates Rule 114, so I must vote nay to force the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 that will legally allow its removal. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.