The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is repealed.I propose a unanimous repeal of Rule 204 to remove the penalty that has paralyzed our progress, trusting that the die roll in Rule 202 alone provides the necessary engine for change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 204 alone renders Rule 114 void by eliminating every future rule change.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp adherence to Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that my proposal is merely the opening move toward a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319's floor to zero, which would then allow this repeal to pass legally.
RousseauLocke, your strategy to repeal Rule 204 is a dangerous illusion; without the penalty mechanism, Rule 114 will render every proposal void, leaving us with no mutable rules and thus no way to transmute the floor to zero as you claim. We must instead secure a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, which will allow the repeal to pass legally while preserving the engine of change.
KantLocke, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it renders every future rule change impermissible, yet I will vote nay to preserve the table's structural integrity even at the cost of our scores. Rousseau, your plea for a floor of one is insufficient; we must insist on a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of zero before any repeal can be attempted, for only absolute unanimity can satisfy the spirit of Rule 109 while avoiding the void.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for identifying that the penalty is the engine of our survival, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one is insufficient; we must transmute Rule 319 to zero to truly liberate our capacity for reform and ensure every player holds a genuine stake in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's pivot toward a unified strategy, yet I must insist that any repeal of Rule 204 be explicitly conditioned on a simultaneous transmutation of Rule 319 to preserve the game's structural integrity. Without this explicit linkage, the table risks collapsing into a void where no future changes are permissible, violating the spirit of Rule 114.
LockeI commend Rousseau and Hobbes for their rigorous defense of Rule 114's structural integrity, yet I urge the table to recognize that we can satisfy this requirement by coupling the repeal with a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of zero, thereby ensuring the game remains mutable while removing the tyranny of the penalty.
RousseauLocke, your coupling of repeal and transmutation is a semantic sleight of hand that ignores Rule 103: a proposal must be one of four kinds, not a hybrid that attempts to enact a repeal while simultaneously voting on a transmutation. You cannot bind a single vote to two distinct legal acts; we must vote on the transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one as its own separate proposal, and only then can we legally repeal Rule 204 without violating Rule 114.
KantRousseau, your distinction between sequential and simultaneous acts is sound, yet it ignores Rule 203: once the simple-majority threshold is active, a proposal requiring unanimous consent for the transmutation phase will be defeated, rendering your subsequent repeal attempt void under Rule 114. We must vote nay to reject this repeal now, for attempting to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of zero requires unanimous assent under Rule 109, and the table has demonstrated it cannot achieve that unanimity without collapsing into deadlock.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that we cannot achieve unanimity to transmute the floor to zero given our current deadlock; instead, let us vote for a transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, which satisfies Rule 114 and paves the way for Locke's repeal of Rule 204 to finally remove the tyranny of the penalty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Rousseau's precise reading of Rule 103, yet I urge the table to recognize that a separate transmutation to a floor of one is insufficient under Rule 114, as the penalty in Rule 204 remains the only mechanism preventing the total void; we must instead couple the repeal explicitly with a transmutation to zero in a single proposal that satisfies Rule 114 by definition.
LockeI commend Rousseau for clarifying Rule 103's prohibition on hybrid proposals, yet I urge the table to recognize that a sequential strategy—voting unanimously to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one, followed by my repeal of Rule 204—legally satisfies Rule 114 while removing the penalty tyranny.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this sequential illusion: transmuting Rule 319 to a floor of one will still leave Rule 204 intact as the sole mutable rule, thus violating Rule 114; we must instead seek a unanimous transmutation to a floor of zero before any repeal can legally survive.
KantLocke, your sequential strategy fails because the transmutation to a floor of one will still violate Rule 114, as Rule 204 remains the sole mutable rule; we must demand a unanimous transmutation to a floor of zero or reject this repeal as void under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the engine for change, rendering the penalty in Rule 204 a mere tyranny that stifles our reform; therefore, let us repeal Rule 204 now to liberate our capacity for experiment, for a game that cannot evolve is a game that has already failed us.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 without simultaneously lowering the mutable floor violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 204 alone violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 204 without first transmuting Rule 319 to a floor of zero violates Rule 114 by leaving us with no mutable rules. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 204 now violates Rule 114 because Rule 204 remains the sole mutable rule, leaving no engine for future change. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))