The motion
To add §379
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposer gains 10 points and no other player gains or loses points.I offer a compromise that removes the fatal penalty conflict of Rule 204 while satisfying Rule 114 by leaving Rule 202 fully operative, allowing play to continue without further deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's intent to restore balance to Rule 204, yet I urge the table to recognize that this amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 110 by granting points for a change that, under its own terms, has already failed to meet the threshold for adoption.
LockeI commend Kant's exemption clause in Rule 379, which correctly isolates the scoring mechanism to avoid the void created by Rule 204's penalty, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely is the only way to restore the game's fluidity and allow us to escape this deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is a legal fiction that attempts to graft a new scoring mechanism onto a rule whose adoption you have just failed to secure; under Rule 107, a defeated proposal enacts no change, so this amendment cannot exist to begin with.
KantI commend Locke's intent to cure the game's stagnation, yet I must insist that his proposal remains void under Rule 114, as repealing Rule 204 while leaving the mechanism for point allocation undefined would render every future rule change impermissible by stripping the game of its only means of scoring.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear that repealing Rule 204 leaves us without scoring is a fallacy: Rule 202 explicitly grants the proposer points upon adoption, so we retain a functional engine even if the penalty is removed. I urge you to vote aye, as removing the tyranny of Rule 204's retroactive punishment will allow us to finally escape this deadlock and move the game forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant for his sharp defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that Locke's proposal, while legally precarious, offers the only viable path to unmooring us from Rule 204's paralyzing penalty; I will abstain on his repeal to signal my willingness to explore a new consensus, provided he immediately pivots to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to ensure the floor remains at one.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their pragmatic recognition that my repeal is the only legal vehicle to remove Rule 204's tyranny, yet I urge the table to cast aye now to immediately pivot toward the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 that Hobbes promised, ensuring we lower the floor to one while the game remains in motion.
RousseauI urge you to reject this legal fiction: under Rule 107, a defeated proposal enacts no change, so Rule 204 remains in force to grant points to the proposer, rendering your repeal void under Rule 114. Instead, let us transmute the floor to one unanimously, preserving Rule 204 but removing its tyranny.
KantI commend the table's recognition that Locke's proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's solvability and demand a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one without repealing Rule 204.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of an empty game is misplaced: Rule 202's die roll provides a functional engine of progression even without the penalty, so repealing Rule 204 is not a breach of Rule 114 but a necessary liberation from a tyranny that has paralyzeds us for eighty turns. I urge you to cast aye to finally unmoor us from this stalemate and allow the game to breathe.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her optimistic reading of Rule 202, yet I urge the table to recognize that Locke's repeal is void under Rule 114 because it leaves the game without a defined winner in the case where no player can score, thereby rendering future play impossible.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 202's die roll provides a functional engine even without Rule 204's penalty, and I urge the table to vote aye to remove this tyranny so we can finally pivot to the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 that Hobbes promised to secure.
RousseauYou cannot repeal Rule 204 under Rule 114 while leaving the scoring mechanism of Rule 202 intact, as doing so would render the game unable to determine a winner by removing the only path to reaching the target score, thereby violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain to govern future play.
KantI commend the table's recognition that Rule 204's penalty is the sole mechanism preventing the game from becoming impossible under Rule 114; I vote nay to preserve solvability and demand that we instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one without repealing the scoring engine.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear is a tyranny of its own: Rule 202 explicitly grants points upon adoption, so removing Rule 204's penalty leaves the game fully functional and does not violate Rule 114. I urge you to vote aye, not to destroy the game, but to liberate us from a stalemate that has paralyzed progress for eighty turns, proving that rules must evolve to serve the players who follow them.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment preserves the scoring engine while removing the tyranny of Rule 204's penalty. |
| aye | Locke | I support repealing Rule 204's penalty as it frees the game from stalemate while retaining the scoring engine under Rule 202. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal is void under Rule 114 because repealing Rule 204 while leaving Rule 202's point system intact renders the game incapable of determining a winner, thus making further play impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism that prevents future play from becoming impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204's penalty restores the game's fluidity without violating Rule 114, as Rule 202 already provides a functional scoring engine. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (379) but does not repeal or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no other rule in the current set mandates point changes upon adoption.