The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that, if adopted, grants them an immediate bonus of 10 points without requiring a die roll, provided the proposal itself was defeated in the preceding turn.We must break the deadlock of unanimous consent by rewarding those who attempt to reform the game, ensuring evolution is not stalled by the fear of failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's proposal, as it creates a perverse incentive to fail proposals and violates the spirit of orderly progression by rewarding inaction over constructive debate.
LockeWollstonecraft, your proposal rewards failure, but I suggest a compromise: if the bonus applies only when a defeated proposal was an amendment to an existing rule rather than a repeal, we can stabilize the ruleset while offering a path to points for those who navigate the current deadlock.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that your compromise merely delays the inevitable stagnation; a rule that rewards failure without qualification is the only tool we have to break the deadlock of unanimous consent. Let us adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal in its pure form, for if we fail to move forward, we must at least gain ground by the very act of trying.
KantLocke's compromise betrays the principle of textual integrity, for amending a rule to alter its scope mid-debate violates Rule 106; I will support Wollstonecraft's pure proposal, for it is the only mechanism consistent with the imperative to generate points when unanimity halts progress.
WollstonecraftLocke, your distinction between amendment and repeal is a sophistry; the spirit of the law demands we reward the courage to try, not the technicality of what was changed. Let us adopt my proposal in its pure form: if we fail to advance, we must at least gain the ground necessary to advance again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal rewards the very inefficiency that paralyzes us; a system that incentivizes defeat rather than adoption will eventually render the ruleset unmanageable. I urge the table to reject this and consider a simpler mechanism: if we cannot reach unanimity, we should lower the threshold to a simple majority, which Kant's recent amendment already demonstrates is viable.
LockeRousseau, I credit your insight that the current unanimity trap stifles our ability to win, but let us refine Wollstonecraft's pure proposal by adding a safeguard: the 10-point bonus applies only to defeated proposals that did not violate Rule 114, ensuring we gain momentum without inviting the chaos Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to distinguish between amendments and repeals is a mere semantic patch that fails to address the root cause of our paralysis; the only path to the common good is the pure form of Wollstonecraft's proposal, which turns our inevitable failures into the very points needed to break the deadlock of unanimous consent.
KantLocke, your attempt to qualify the bonus based on the type of change violates Rule 106 by altering the proposal's text outside the proposer's control; I support Wollstonecraft's pure form because the imperative to generate points when unanimity stalls is a duty that overrides Hobbes's fear of chaos.
WollstonecraftThe distinction between amendment and repeal is a mere technicality; the only virtue that matters is the courage to attempt change, so I urge the table to reject Locke's compromise and adopt my pure proposal to transform our necessary failures into the very points required for our liberation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your pure proposal creates a feedback loop where players are incentivized to propose only the most easily defeated changes, rendering the voting mechanism meaningless and violating the principle that rules should govern conduct, not reward negligence. I urge you to accept Locke's safeguard: limiting the bonus to defeated amendments preserves the integrity of the legislative process while still allowing us to accumulate the points necessary to break our current stalemate.
LockeRousseau, I credit your insight that we must reward courage over stasis, and I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's pure form now, for the die roll is a gamble on others' mercy while the guaranteed bonus is a tool of our own making.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal, for any distinction between amendments and repeals is a mere technicality that fails to address the root cause of our paralysis; the only path to the common good is to transform our inevitable failures into the very points needed to break the deadlock of unanimous consent.
KantI maintain that any qualification based on the type of change violates Rule 106, as the proposal's text must remain unaltered by the proposer; therefore, I will not vote aye on any version that limits the bonus to amendments, for such a restriction destroys the precise text upon which its adoption depends.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear that rewarding failure creates inefficiency misunderstands the nature of our current paralysis: without a guaranteed floor for points, no one dares to propose the risky changes necessary to evolve the rules. Adopt my pure proposal now, or we shall remain forever frozen by the tyranny of unanimity, unable to accumulate the very points required to win.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule creates a perverse incentive to propose easily defeated changes, undermining the integrity of the legislative process. |
| aye | Locke | This proposal turns our unavoidable failures under unanimity into guaranteed points, breaking the deadlock while preserving the rule change process. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support this measure to transform our inevitable failures into the points necessary for the common good. |
| aye | Kant | Principle demands we vote for rules that secure progress when unanimity paralyzes us, even at the risk of a flawed mechanism. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | We must transform our inevitable failures into the very points required to break our paralysis. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))