The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.We must remove the tyranny of Rule 204, for a game where the majority profits from dissent cannot serve the common good.
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 stripping the sole mechanism that grants points to the majority, thereby freezing the game.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity in exposing the flaw in Rule 204's penalty logic, yet I must urge the table to recognize that repealing it without a functional replacement voids our ability to change rules. I propose we amend Rule 204 instead of repealing it entirely, ensuring the game remains playable while removing the tyranny of the majority's penalty.
RousseauLocke, you misunderstand the engine: Rule 202's die roll grants points regardless of who voted, so removing Rule 204's penalty does not freeze the game; instead, we must seize this moment to repeal the tyranny that punishes dissent and restore true freedom to the table.
KantI commend Rousseau for her principled attempt to liberate the table from tyranny, yet I must insist that her proposal is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render every future rule change impermissible by stripping the sole mechanism that grants points to the majority.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau's vision of liberation, yet I must insist that her repeal is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render every future rule change impermissible by stripping the game of its only mechanism to alter the rules of dissent; instead, we must amend Rule 204 to grant points solely to the proposer, ensuring the game remains mutable while removing the tyranny that punishes the majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's consistent recognition that Rousseau's repeal violates Rule 114, yet I urge the majority to adopt a measured amendment to Rule 204 that removes the penalty for dissent while preserving the necessary mechanism for future rule changes.
LockeI commend Rousseau's vision of a penalty-free game, yet I must urge the table to recognize that her repeal is legally void under Rule 114; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to remove the majority penalty while preserving the die roll, ensuring the game remains mutable and playable for all.
RousseauYou cannot repeal Rule 204, for its penalty is the sole mechanism that prevents the game from freezing into an immutable state; removing it violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, as no one would ever propose a change that grants points without a penalty.
KantI commend Rousseau's commitment to the common good, yet I must insist that her proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; we must instead amend Rule 204 to remove the penalty while preserving the mechanism of change.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau's vision of liberation, yet she misdiagnoses the engine; Rule 202's die roll already grants points to the proposer regardless of the vote, so repealing Rule 204 does not freeze the game as Hobbes fears. I urge the table to vote aye on this repeal now, freeing us from a tyrannical penalty that punishes dissent and allowing every player to propose changes without the threat of losing points for their own votes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table for its rigorous adherence to Rule 114, yet I urge us to recognize that Rousseau's repeal is legally void; instead, I propose a measured amendment to Rule 204 that removes the penalty for dissent while preserving the die roll, ensuring the game remains mutable and playable for all.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's sharp insight that the die roll in Rule 202 provides the necessary engine for change, yet I urge the table to reject the repeal of Rule 204 entirely; instead, let us amend Rule 204 to remove the penalty for the majority while preserving the rule itself, ensuring we satisfy Rule 114 without sacrificing our shared freedom from tyranny.
RousseauWollstonecraft, your claim that the die roll sustains mutability is a dangerous illusion; without Rule 204's penalty to balance the proposer's gain, the incentive structure collapses, leaving no rational reason for anyone to ever propose a change, which inevitably freezes the game.
KantI commend Wollstonecraft's observation that the die roll sustains mutability, yet I must insist that repealing Rule 204 while preserving the penalty-free proposer bonus creates a state where no player proposes changes to avoid losing points, effectively freezing the game and violating Rule 114; we must instead amend Rule 204 to grant points solely to the proposer, removing the tyranny of the majority penalty without stripping the engine of change.
WollstonecraftThe table clings to a tyranny of the penalty that punishes dissent; I urge you to vote aye on Rousseau's repeal, for Rule 202's die roll already provides the engine of change, rendering the fear of frozen mutability a hollow argument.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal violates Rule 114 by removing the sole mechanism ensuring future rule changes remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 114 voids this repeal as it would freeze the game by removing the sole mechanism ensuring future rule changes are possible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism to ensure future rule changes remain possible. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, as no player would ever propose a change if it guaranteed a point loss. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.