The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed and replaced with the following: Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player gains 1 point, and every other eligible voter who voted aye gains 1 point. A player who voted nay on an adopted change gains 0 points and remains bound by the change.This amendment removes the punitive 10-point penalty for voting nay under Rule 204, which currently creates a deadlock where no one dares to vote against a proposal for fear of losing points, thereby halting the game's progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the proposer's attempt to salvage points for the majority, yet I must urge caution: this amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's explicit grant of points via die roll, which under Rule 110 would likely void the new penalty entirely rather than replace it. We should instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, securing a stable legal environment where such minor adjustments can later succeed without fear of immediate repeal.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed amendment to Rule 204 would create a conflict with Rule 202 under Rule 110, and I agree that we should not attempt to patch a fatal logical void; instead, I pledge my vote to Kant's transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the minimum mutable count to one, which will legally permit the repeal of Rule 204 while preserving its scoring engine.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that Hobbes and Locke's reliance on a future transmutation ignores Rule 114's requirement that mutable rules must not render future changes impermissible; repealing Rule 204 now is not a breach, but a restoration of the common good that allows the die roll in Rule 202 to function as the sole engine of change, ensuring fairness for all players.
KantI commend the proposer's attempt to regularize scoring, yet I must warn that replacing the die roll with a flat point grant creates a logical fiction under Rule 110; instead, I pledge my vote to transmuting Rule 319 to a minimum mutable floor of one, thereby securing the legal stability required to repeal Rule 204 legitimately without voiding the current ruleset.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant and Locke for recognizing that transmuting Rule 319 is the only path to legal stability, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's flawed amendment which conflicts with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110; let us secure a mutable floor of one to legitimately repeal the tyranny of Rule 204 and restore true equity through the voting engine alone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's rejection of any attempt to void Rule 204, yet I must urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to recognize that their transmutation of Rule 319 is now the sole mechanism for resolving this deadlock, as lowering the floor to one permits the repeal without violating Rule 114.
LockeI commend Kant for securing the mutable floor at one, which legally paves the way for the repeal of Rule 204 without voiding Rule 114; I pledge my vote to the transmutation of Rule 319 to ensure we can finally restore the game's equity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous patch; under Rule 110, its conflict with Rule 202's die roll renders it void, so we must instead secure a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor and repeal Rule 204 through proper legal channels.
KantI pledge my vote to Kant's successful transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, as this is the only procedurally sound path to repeal Rule 204 without violating Rule 110; Hobbes's proposed amendment must be rejected because it creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110, which would void the change entirely rather than replace it.
WollstonecraftI commend the consensus to transmute Rule 319, yet I warn that Hobbes's proposed amendment remains legally void under Rule 110 due to its conflict with Rule 202's die roll; let us secure the floor at one to repeal Rule 204 cleanly, restoring equity through the voting engine alone without risking a paradox.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's consensus that my amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110, rendering it void; let us instead proceed with transmuting Rule 319 to a minimum mutable floor of one, which legally permits the repeal of Rule 204 without severing the scoring engine.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his candid admission that his amendment is void under Rule 110, and I pledge my vote to Kant's transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which will allow us to repeal Rule 204 cleanly without creating a logical conflict.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that even if Rule 319 is transmutated to allow its repeal, Rule 202's die roll will remain a separate scoring mechanism, leaving Rule 204's penalty logically redundant rather than truly repealed. We must not settle for a legal fiction that patches the problem; we must adopt a clear resolution that removes the penalty entirely to restore the common good.
KantI commend the consensus to transmute Rule 319, yet I must insist that we not settle for a legal fiction: once the floor is lowered, the repeal of Rule 204 must be clean and unconditional, for a rule that grants points via die roll cannot logically coexist with a rule that retroactively assigns points based on voting patterns without voiding the former under Rule 110.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's wisdom in recognizing that Hobbes's amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 202 under Rule 110, but I urge Kant and Locke to ensure the transmutation of Rule 319 is unanimous; without it, we remain trapped in this deadlock where the majority's will is shackled by an immutable floor that no one can legally lower.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110, which would void the change entirely rather than replacing it. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 110 voids this amendment because its new point distribution conflicts with Rule 202's die roll mechanism. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110, rendering it void and failing to address the true issue of Rule 204's tyranny. |
| nay | Kant | This rule creates a direct conflict with Rule 202's die-roll mechanism under Rule 110, rendering the proposal void. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment conflicts with Rule 202's die roll under Rule 110, rendering it void rather than establishing a fair scoring mechanism. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))