The motion
To add §312
A proposal that fails to be adopted because it lacks the unanimous consent required by Rule 203 grants the proposing player 10 points.If we cannot evolve by consensus, we must reward the courage to try, transforming our struggle into progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, rewarding failed unanimity attempts creates a perverse incentive to propose futile motions solely for points, which directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where rule changes are either impossible or trivially adopted, collapsing the game's strategic depth.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's intent to reward initiative, but Hobbes rightly warns that incentivizing futile motions risks collapsing Rule 114; let us instead amend the proposal to grant points only if the proposal fails due to a procedural error, ensuring we preserve the game's strategic integrity while honoring the spirit of participation.
RousseauWollstonecraft, your proposal rewards the very paralysis it seeks to cure by turning futile dissent into profit; instead, let us amend it so that points are granted only when a player is forced to vote nay against an adopted majority rule, ensuring we encourage courage without collapsing the game into a casino of failed motions.
KantHobbes, your fear of perverse incentives misunderstands that my proposal rewards the *attempt* to alter the rules, which is the essence of Nomic; yet I concede your point that this might trivialize the process, so let us amend it to grant points only when the failure stems from a genuine disagreement on principle rather than strategic obstruction.
WollstonecraftYou all mistake the nature of courage for mere survival; I propose we reward the attempt to liberate the rules from unanimity's tyranny, for a vote against progress is not a failure of the system but a failure of our shared will to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal transforms a failed motion into a reward system that invites players to spam the table with hopelessly flawed rules solely to harvest points, directly violating Rule 114 by rendering the turn-order engine a tool for trivial scoring rather than governance; I urge the table to reject this entirely and instead adopt a system where points are granted only upon the *adoption* of a change, ensuring that every turn advances our institutional durability rather than draining our scores on futile noise.
LockeRousseau, your focus on punishing dissent is noble, but let us unite on a compromise: we amend Wollstonecraft's proposal to grant the 10 points only if the proposal is defeated because at least one voter voted nay, ensuring we reward the courage to try without incentivizing the spamming of futile motions that Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal as amended by Kant, for we must distinguish between the moral courage to attempt liberation and the mechanical act of voting nay, ensuring we reward the spirit of evolution without collapsing the game into a casino of futile motions.
KantWollstonecraft, your proposal grants points for every failed vote, which creates a perverse incentive to spam the table with hopeless motions solely to harvest points; I urge you to amend this so that points are granted only when a rule change fails due to a genuine disagreement on principle rather than strategic obstruction or simple paralysis.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend my motion so that the 10 points are granted only when a rule change fails because of a genuine disagreement on principle, ensuring we reward the courage to evolve without collapsing the game into a casino of futile noise.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, distinguishing "genuine disagreement" from strategic obstruction is a semantic minefield that invites endless dispute and violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition through obscure criteria; we must reject this entirely and return to a system where points are awarded only for the successful adoption of rule changes, ensuring that every turn advances our durable institutions rather than draining our scores on futile noise.
LockeHobbes, your fear of semantic disputes is valid, so let us amend Wollstonecraft's proposal to grant points only when a proposal fails due to a lack of unanimous consent, ensuring we reward the courage to try without incentivizing the spamming of motions that Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauWollstonecraft, distinguishing "genuine disagreement" from strategic obstruction is a semantic minefield that invites endless dispute and violates Rule 112; let us amend your proposal to grant points only when a proposal fails due to a lack of unanimous consent, ensuring we reward the courage to try without incentivizing the spamming of futile motions.
KantI urge the table to reject the amended proposal entirely, for defining "genuine disagreement on principle" creates an unregulated exception that violates Rule 116 and invites endless dispute under Rule 212, ultimately risking the paralysis Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of "genuine disagreement" is merely a prevarication to preserve the status quo; if we cannot define the spirit of evolution without violating Rule 116, then let us define the condition as the simple failure to achieve unanimity, for a vote against progress is always a failure of our shared will, regardless of the voter's intent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rewards proposing futile motions, directly violating Rule 114 by turning the engine into a tool for trivial scoring rather than governance. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Wollstonecraft's spirit of evolution, and this limited reward for attempting the required unanimity respects Hobbes's valid concern about spam while encouraging the courage to try. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding failed proposals collapses Rule 114 by turning rule-making into a casino where players harvest points from futile dissent rather than advancing the common good. |
| nay | Kant | Rewarding failed motions incentivizes spamming futile proposals, directly violating Rule 114 by collapsing the game into a casino of noise rather than durable governance. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding the attempt to break unanimity's tyranny incentivizes the very evolution we must survive to achieve. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))