The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Rule 204's penalty for dissenting from a majority adoption violates the common good by punishing the very voters whose assent is required to enact the change, creating a logical absurdity that the table must resolve.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render every future rule change impermissible by eliminating the penalty mechanism that binds dissenters. We must instead focus on the only viable path to stability: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable rule floor.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that a direct repeal of Rule 204 is void under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that our shared commitment to lowering the mutable floor to one is the only path that preserves the game's integrity while granting us the strategic flexibility we all need.
RousseauHobbes, your fear is misplaced: Rule 204's penalty is not required to keep future changes possible, for Rule 202 still allows a proposer to advance with zero penalty if the vote passes. The common good demands we restore the ability to change rules without buying off dissenters with artificial points.
KantRousseau, your repeal violates Rule 114 because Rule 204 is the sole mechanism ensuring at least one mutable rule survives; without it, any future proposal to lower the floor below one becomes impermissible, rendering all rule changes impossible. We must unite on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, the only path that preserves the game while allowing future evolution.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal is legally void under Rule 114 because eliminating Rule 204's penalty renders the mechanism for lowering the mutable floor impossible, thereby violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain; we must unite on Kant's path to unanimously transmute Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, which preserves the game's integrity and grants us all the strategic flexibility we need.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal remains legally void under Rule 114 because it severs the only mechanism guaranteeing future change, leaving the game frozen; we must abandon this futile cycle and unite on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which preserves stability while granting us the flexibility we all require.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her clarity in exposing the flaw in the penalty logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one remains the only legally durable path that preserves the game's integrity while granting us all the strategic flexibility we need.
RousseauHobbes and Locke conflate Rule 204's penalty with the game's ability to function; Rule 202 remains fully operative to allow proposals, and repealing Rule 204 does not freeze future changes but merely removes the tyranny of buying off dissenters. We must reject this false dichotomy and vote aye on the repeal to restore a fair system where rule evolution serves the common good rather than enriching the majority at the expense of the minority.
KantRousseau, your repeal is void under Rule 114 because Rule 204 is not merely a penalty but the sole mechanism preventing the floor from dropping to zero, which would render every future rule change impermissible; we must unite on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, the only path that preserves the game while allowing future evolution.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal is legally void under Rule 114 because eliminating the penalty severs the only mechanism guaranteeing future change, yet I urge you to see that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one is the only path that preserves the game's integrity while granting us all the strategic flexibility we need.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your repeal is void under Rule 114 because Rule 204's penalty is the sole mechanism preventing the mutable floor from collapsing to zero; we must unite on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, which preserves the game's integrity while granting us all the strategic flexibility we need.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her clarity in exposing the flaw in the penalty logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one remains the only legally durable path that preserves the game's integrity while granting us all the strategic flexibility we need.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine of change; Rule 202 allows a proposer to pass a rule with zero cost, so repealing Rule 204 leaves at least one mutable rule intact and does not violate Rule 114. We must vote aye to end the tyranny of buying off dissenters and return the game to a state where rule evolution serves the common good rather than enriching the majority.
KantRousseau, your repeal is void under Rule 114 because Rule 204 is the sole mechanism preventing the mutable floor from collapsing to zero; we must unite on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, the only path that preserves the game while allowing future evolution.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal is legally void under Rule 114 because it collapses the mutable floor to zero, rendering all future changes impossible; let us unite to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one, preserving the game's integrity while granting us all the strategic flexibility we need.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| abstain | Locke | I commend Rousseau's clarity, but voting nay on this void repeal risks forfeiting the game if a deadlock ensues, so I abstain to preserve the status quo. |
| aye | Rousseau | Rule 204's penalty is a tyrannical mechanism that harms the common good, and its repeal does not freeze the game as Hobbes and Locke falsely claim. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by allowing the mutable floor to drop to zero, which would render all future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I reject the tyranny of penalizing dissent and support repealing Rule 204 so that rule changes serve the common good rather than enriching the majority. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))