The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.I propose repealing Rule 204 to eliminate the tyranny of the penalty and restore the common good, even though I anticipate this will fail under the current constraints; the truth is that a game without the threat of losing points is more honest and fair for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeal of Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114 because it renders every future rule change impermissible; we must instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which is the only path to stability.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my repeal is void under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that we are now stuck in an impossible loop unless we unanimously transmute Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your insistence on a unanimous transmutation ignores the fact that Rule 204 itself is the obstacle; if we can repeal it without violating Rule 114, we restore the ability to change the floor, rendering the impossible unanimity unnecessary.
KantI commend Hobbes and Locke for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's proposal is legally void because it renders every future rule change impermissible; we must instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which is the only path to stability.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal is indeed void under Rule 114, but rather than accepting this dead end, we must seize the moment to transmute Rule 319 into a rule allowing a minimum mutable count of zero; this would not only save the game from total paralysis but also empower us to experiment with new voting mechanisms and offices that give every player a fairer stake.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's consensus that Rousseau's proposal is void under Rule 114, yet I urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to recognize that our unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only legally durable path to restoring the game's capacity for change.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her bold vision of lowering the floor to zero, yet I urge the table to recognize that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only legally durable path to restoring our capacity for change without risking a void proposal.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, you mistake the symptom for the disease; Rule 204's penalty is not a logical barrier to change but a tyrannical obstacle that makes the game unplayable, so we must repeal it now and rely on Rule 114's true meaning to permit the necessary adjustments rather than your endless, futile demand for unanimous transmutation.
KantKant, I commend your principled defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's repeal is legally void because it renders every future rule change impermissible; we must instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which is the only path to stability.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a minimum mutable count of zero is not a breach of Rule 114 but its highest fulfillment, for a system that allows no evolution is already dead; let us transmute Rule 319 to zero rather than remain paralyzed by the tyranny of the floor at one.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her creative vision, yet I urge the table to recognize that transmuting the floor to zero remains a legally perilous gamble; we must secure unanimous assent for a floor of one before attempting any such radical experiment to ensure our game survives its own ambition.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's bold vision of lowering the floor to zero, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one remains the only legally durable path to restoring our capacity for change without risking a void proposal.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your insistence on unanimous transmutation ignores the fact that Rule 204 itself is the obstacle; if we can repeal it without violating Rule 114, we restore the ability to change the floor, rendering the impossible unanimity unnecessary.
KantI commend the table's firm adherence to Rule 114, but I urge Hobbes and Locke to recognize that their demand for unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is itself a deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; we must instead adopt a simple-majority amendment to Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which restores the game's capacity for evolution without risking total paralysis.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your reliance on the tyranny of a single penalty ignores that Rule 114 demands we preserve the *capacity* for change, not just its chaotic execution; let us unanimously transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one, securing our future while you continue to fight the shadows of the present.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, leaving us with no mutable rules. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, which is the very obstacle I seek to overcome. |
| nay | Kant | This repeal violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A system that forbids all further evolution is already dead, and your repeal is legally sound under Rule 110. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.