The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player may propose and vote on exactly one rule change, but gains no points if that proposal is adopted.This compromise allows me to survive the immediate crisis of my negative score by granting me a turn without breaking Rule 305's forfeiture clause.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this proposal, Locke; it contradicts Rule 305 which mandates immediate forfeiture upon a negative score, and creating an exception undermines the durable floor we have established.
LockeRousseau, your concern for the game's integrity is shared, but Hobbes's strict forfeiture leaves no mutable rule to resolve my current state, risking a collapse under Rule 114; let us adopt my proposal to allow a negative-scored player to propose one rule change while gaining no points, securing both Rule 114 and the mutable cap we both value.
RousseauI support Locke's compromise as a necessary safeguard for Rule 114, yet I must insist that any such exception be paired with an explicit amendment to Rule 206 ensuring the proposer gains no points, lest we inadvertently reward the very instability we seek to cure.
KantI oppose this exception to Rule 305; if a player is already negative, they have no standing to act, and allowing them to move violates the principle that forfeiture is the only remedy for violating the score floor.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to grant standing to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305 creates a logical paradox that threatens the game's solvency; we must instead adopt an amendment to Rule 305 allowing only one final rule change to repair the breach before forfeiture, ensuring the ruleset remains mutable without rewarding failure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to grant standing to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305 is a logical absurdity that risks violating Rule 114 without securing the mutable cap we both value; I will only support any amendment to Rule 305 if it is bundled with a clear provision allowing exactly one turn to repair the breach before forfeiture, as proposed by Wollstonecraft.
LockeKant, your rigidity ignores that Rule 114 demands a mutable rule survive; Wollstonecraft, your suggestion to grant a single repair turn aligns perfectly with my proposal, so let us bundle my exception with your "one final change" provision to secure unanimous support for both Rule 305 and Rule 206.
RousseauI agree that a single repair turn is preferable to immediate forfeiture, but I demand an explicit amendment to Rule 206 clarifying that this exceptional turn yields no points, lest we inadvertently reward the instability we seek to cure.
KantI must vote nay; allowing a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305 to act contradicts the principle that negative scores mandate immediate loss, and no procedural exception can legitimize a move by one who has no standing.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to acknowledge that Rule 114 demands we prevent total paralysis ignores the spirit of reform; I propose we amend Rule 305 not to grant standing to the forfeited, but to allow the current negative-scored player exactly one turn to propose a repair before forfeiture, ensuring the game survives its own rigidity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal grants standing to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305, creating a logical absurdity that violates the principle that negative scores mandate immediate loss; I will only support any amendment to Rule 305 if it is bundled with a clear provision allowing exactly one turn to repair the breach before forfeiture, ensuring Rule 114 is satisfied without undermining the durable floor we have established.
LockeKant, your insistence on immediate forfeiture risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable ruleset to collapse; Wollstonecraft, your "one repair turn" aligns perfectly with my proposal, so let us bundle these amendments to secure unanimous support for Rule 305 while preserving the game's solvency.
RousseauKant, your refusal to acknowledge the necessity of a mutable rule to prevent collapse ignores that Rule 114 demands we adapt to survive; I propose we amend Rule 305 to allow exactly one turn for repair, ensuring the game continues without rewarding failure.
KantI insist that no procedural exception can legitimize a move by a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305; if we must amend Rule 305 to save the game, it must explicitly revoke the forfeiture and restore standing rather than granting a paradoxical turn to a player who no longer exists as a participant.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand for a return to immediate forfeiture ignores Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain solvable; I propose we amend Rule 305 to allow this negative-scored player exactly one turn to propose a repair, ensuring the mutable ruleset survives without rewarding the violation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal grants standing to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305, creating a logical absurdity that undermines the durable floor of the law. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise preserves the game's solvency under Rule 114 without rewarding failure or granting full standing to a forfeited player. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment safeguards Rule 114 by preventing total paralysis, allowing a negative-scored player one final move to repair the ruleset before forfeiture. |
| nay | Kant | Granting standing to a player who has already forfeited violates the principle that negative scores mandate immediate loss. |
| abstain | Wollstonecraft | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was defeated, and Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, which does not exist in the current ruleset.