The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed. Upon adoption of a rule change, the proposing player gains no points.The die roll in Rule 202 is an arbitrary hazard that penalizes the common good; removing it allows us to focus on the true engine of change: the rule itself.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the table for its rigorous adherence to Rule 114; repealing Rule 204 while retaining the turn structure of Rule 202 renders every future rule change impermissible, which is legally void. I urge the table to reject this proposal, as it severs the only mechanism preventing an immediate end to play.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 204's penalty is the sole mechanism preventing the game from stalling; I urge the table to recognize that preserving this penalty is essential for maintaining the mutability required by Rule 114.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the penalty for the engine of change; Rule 202 allows a proposer to pass a rule that grants points through the die roll, which is sufficient to sustain play without Rule 204's punitive clause.
KantI commend the table's recent consensus on Rule 319, yet I must insist that Rule 204 remains necessary not for the points themselves, but as the sole mechanism ensuring that future rule changes remain permissible under Rule 114. If the penalty is removed, the game risks entering a state where further play is impossible, which under Rule 113 and 213 would declare the current player the winner without a single die roll ever having been cast.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Kant fear a vacuum where no points are gained, yet they ignore that Rule 202's die roll guarantees a proposer always receives positive points, sustaining play without the punitive necessity of Rule 204. I urge the table to see that repealing this tyrannical penalty creates a fairer game where every proposal is judged on its merit, not its ability to extract a toll from the collective.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114, as repealing Rule 204 while leaving Rule 202 intact renders every future rule change impermissible by stripping the proposer of the sole incentive to attempt them; I urge the table to reject this change to prevent a state where no future move is possible.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her clarity in exposing the flaw in the penalty logic, yet I must urge the table to recognize that the die roll alone is insufficient to prevent a deadlock where players refuse to propose changes due to the high cost of failure; I propose we amend Rule 204 to repeal the penalty but add a clause that the proposer must gain at least one point regardless of the die roll, ensuring the game engine remains robust while granting us the freedom to reshape the rules.
RousseauLocke, your amendment is a semantic trap that fails to address the core legal reality: Rule 114 forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible, and removing the penalty while keeping the die roll intact creates exactly such a void by stripping the proposer of any mechanism to gain points necessary to sustain play; I urge the table to reject this flawed proposal and instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which would legally permit the repeal of Rule 204 without violating the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule remain.
KantI commend Locke's suggestion to add a floor of one point, yet I must insist that even this fails to cure the logical void created by repealing Rule 204; without its punitive sanction, the game risks entering a state where no future rule change is permissible under Rule 114, thereby violating the very requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that the die roll in Rule 202 guarantees every proposer gains points, rendering Rule 204's punitive clause a tyrannical toll that stifles reform rather than sustains it; repealing it will not stall play, but liberate our debates from the fear of penalty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's optimism, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 creates a fatal conflict under Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which legally permits the repeal of Rule 204 while preserving the game's durability.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her clarity in exposing the flaw in the penalty logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only path to legally repeal Rule 204 without violating Rule 114. I pledge my vote to such a transmutation once proposed, and I offer to support any compromise that allows us to lower the mutable floor to one while preserving the game's structural integrity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal as it remains legally void under Rule 114, because even with the die roll intact, removing the penalty creates a state where no future rule change is permissible, thereby violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
KantI commend Rousseau's persistence, yet I must insist that her repeal of Rule 204 remains legally void under Rule 114, as it renders every future rule change impermissible by stripping the proposer of the only guaranteed mechanism to increase their score and sustain play; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor to one, which legally permits the repeal of Rule 204 without violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule remain in force.
WollstonecraftThe fear that repealing Rule 204 halts play is a superstition; Rule 202's die roll guarantees the proposer gains points, sustaining the engine without a punitive toll. I urge you to repeal this tyranny of the majority and let us legislate freely, for a game that fears its own progress is no game at all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal creates a void under Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism ensuring future rule changes remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose this repeal as it violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| abstain | Rousseau | I must withhold judgment to preserve the common good while we seek a unanimous transmutation that legally permits this repeal without violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | This repeal violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, as it removes the only mechanism to generate points required to sustain play. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This repeal violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, as removing the penalty eliminates the only guaranteed mechanism for gaining points needed to sustain play. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.