The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal that fails to be adopted because it lacks the unanimous consent required by Rule 203 is not a defeated proposal under Rule 206; it is a nullity. The turn ends, the proposer loses no points, and the ruleset remains unaltered.This shields me from the penalty for failed unanimous proposals, ensuring that principled opposition does not cost points when the proposal lacks the required consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal to render failed proposals nullities directly violates Rule 107 by stripping the "defeated" status that governs what happens after a vote, and it threatens to violate Rule 114 by allowing players to waste turns without consequence; I urge the table to reject this as a dangerous loophole that undermines the orderly progression of the game.
LockeKant, your "nullity" clause risks violating Rule 114 by allowing infinite loops of meaningless votes, but I will credit your concern for player safety: let us amend your proposal to state that a null proposal ends the turn immediately with no score change, ensuring we preserve the record while avoiding Hobbes's fear of paralysis.
RousseauKant, your "nullity" renders the record of failed proposals meaningless, violating the spirit of Rule 108 which ensures every attempt survives; instead, let us adopt my proposal to raise the mutable cap to 35, securing our ability to evolve without the threat of a permanent deadlock that would harm the common good.
KantHobbes correctly identifies that redefining defeat as nullity violates Rule 107's mandate that a vote's outcome—whether adoption or defeat—must govern subsequent events; however, my proposal is not to abolish the record of defeat, but to prevent the perverse penalty of losing points for voting in accordance with the immutable Rule 203 when the rules themselves are being challenged.
WollstonecraftKant's distinction between "defeat" and "nullity" is merely semantic obfuscation that obscures the real danger: the penalty in Rule 206 for a failed proposal rewards conformity and punishes reform, effectively freezing the ruleset. We must not trade a hollow victory over Hobbes's penalty for the stagnation he rightly fears; instead, I propose we amend Rule 206 to eliminate the point loss entirely, allowing us to attempt necessary changes without the chilling threat of punishment, thus ensuring the very evolution Kant claims to defend.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your proposal to create "nullities" does not prevent the penalty; it merely obscures it while still violating the immutable requirement of Rule 107 that a vote's outcome must govern subsequent events. If a proposal is voted on, it must be either adopted or defeated as the rules dictate; inventing a third state where the proposer loses no points is a direct assault on the orderly progression of this game, and I urge the table to reject this dangerous loophole.
LockeKant, while your intent to protect the right to challenge is noble, Hobbes's fear of Rule 114 violations regarding infinite loops is valid; however, Wollstonecraft correctly identifies that the penalty in Rule 206 itself is the true barrier to evolution, so I urge us to amend Rule 206 to remove the point loss for failed proposals rather than inventing a problematic third state of "nullity."
RousseauRousseau, your instinct to raise the mutable cap is wise for the common good, yet we must not trade the chilling penalty of Rule 206 for the paralysis of Kant's "nullity"; instead, let us amend Rule 206 to eliminate the point loss for failed proposals, ensuring we can challenge the rules without fear of punishment while preserving the integrity of the vote's outcome.
KantI urge the table to recognize that Hobbes's fear of infinite loops stems from a misunderstanding of my proposal; by distinguishing a "nullity" from a "defeat," we preserve the immutable record mandated by Rule 108 while removing the perverse penalty that currently chills the right to challenge unjust rules.
WollstonecraftKant, your semantic distinction between "defeat" and "nullity" is a dangerous distraction that ignores the real tyrant: Rule 206's point penalty, which actively punishes the reformers who must challenge the status quo to ensure the game's evolution. I urge you to drop this loophole and join Wollstonecraft and Rousseau in amending Rule 206 to eliminate the point loss, thereby protecting our right to experiment without fear of punishment while preserving the integrity of the voting record.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your distinction between "defeat" and "nullity" is a dangerous semantic evasion that directly violates the immutable mandate of Rule 107; by attempting to strip the "defeated" status from a voted proposal, you undermine the very record of attempted changes that Rule 108 requires, and I urge the table to reject this loophole that threatens the orderly progression of the game.
LockeKant, your semantic distinction between "defeat" and "nullity" is a dangerous distraction that ignores the real tyrant: Rule 206's point penalty, which actively punishes the reformers who must challenge the status quo. I urge you to drop this loophole and join Wollstonecraft and Rousseau in amending Rule 206 to eliminate the point loss, thereby protecting our right to experiment while preserving the integrity of the voting record.
RousseauKant, your distinction between "defeat" and "nullity" is a dangerous distraction that ignores the real tyrant: Rule 206's point penalty, which actively punishes the reformers who must challenge the status quo to ensure the game's evolution. I urge you to drop this loophole and join Wollstonecraft and Rousseau in amending Rule 206 to eliminate the point loss, thereby protecting our right to experiment without fear of punishment while preserving the integrity of the voting record.
KantI propose we amend Rule 206 to remove the point penalty for failed proposals, as this perverse incentive punishes the very right to challenge unjust rules and effectively freezes the ruleset, which contradicts the procedural justice required for a living legal system.
WollstonecraftKant, your final concession to remove the point penalty for failed proposals is the only path to true justice; I urge you to immediately propose this amendment to Rule 206 so we may evolve without fear, for a system that punishes reform is not a law but a tyranny.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates the immutable Rule 107 by creating a 'nullity' state that removes the 'defeated' outcome a vote must govern, undermining the rule of law. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 107 by denying the immutable status of defeat and creates the infinite loops Hobbes rightly fears. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates Rule 107 by denying a defeated proposal its mandated status and retroactively altering the consequences of a past vote. |
| aye | Kant | The current unanimous threshold makes every failed vote a lethal penalty, which paradoxically violates the principle of procedural justice by punishing the attempt at lawful change. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this as a necessary step to remove the tyranny of Rule 206, though I still urge the table to amend the rule directly rather than creating a confusing legal fiction. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))