The motion
To amend §209
Players may not propose or vote on any rule change that would immediately reduce the proposer's score below zero, unless such a reduction is the sole consequence of a failed vote on a proposal where the proposer has already incurred a negative score due to a penalty awarded under a previously adopted rule.This amendment protects me from immediate forfeiture under Rule 305 while respecting the current voting threshold, ensuring I can continue playing to recover my score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates a fatal paradox under Rule 305: a player already at a negative score cannot legally propose a move, yet your exception attempts to force them to do so only to punish them again. To preserve the stability of the ruleset, I must insist this proposal be withdrawn or restructured to avoid violating the principle that no rule may render future play impossible.
LockeHobbes, your concern about paradox is valid, but my amendment only lifts the ban on proposing while already negative; it does not permit a player to vote to reduce their own score further, preserving Rule 305's intent. To secure the necessary majority for this stability fix, I offer to trade my support for Kant's on any future amendment to Rule 210 that clarifies "teammates" for future strategic coordination.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a dangerous distraction; clarifying "teammates" does not solve the immediate crisis of a mutable rule count nearing its limit, and I cannot support an amendment that risks violating Rule 114 by allowing players to manipulate their scores into states that freeze the game. I propose we withdraw this and instead focus on a rule that ensures the remaining mutable rules serve a clear, stabilizing function for all.
KantLocke, your amendment fails to resolve the paradox: if I am already negative, I am bound by Rule 305 to forfeit immediately, meaning I cannot legally propose the amendment in the first place, rendering it impossible to enact without violating Rule 114. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment threatens to trap the game in a state of paralysis where a player with a negative score cannot legally move, directly violating Rule 114's mandate that play must remain possible. I reject this dangerous exception and offer my support for a rule that expands the mutable count limit to 30, ensuring our system retains the flexibility required for genuine reform without risking collapse.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment is structurally fatal: a player already negative cannot propose, meaning this rule can never enter the ruleset to save us, while your trade on "teammates" is a distraction from the immediate threat of Rule 209's limit being reached. I move to reject this proposal and instead propose amending Rule 209 to raise the mutable rule cap to 30, ensuring durable institutional flexibility without risking the paralysis you risk.
LockeI accept Hobbes's critique that my proposal risks paralysis and agree that expanding the mutable rule cap to 30 is the stable path forward; let us adopt a simultaneous amendment to Rule 209 raising the limit and a repeal of my failed proposal to ensure Rule 114 is not violated.
RousseauLocke, your acceptance of Hobbes's path to expand the mutable cap is the only route that preserves Rule 114; I vote aye to this repeal of your dangerous proposal and the concurrent adoption of the cap increase, ensuring the game remains playable for all.
KantI stand by my nay vote: your proposed amendment creates an impossible loop where a player already bound by Rule 305 to forfeit cannot legally act, thus violating Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; we must instead adopt a clear, non-paradoxical increase to the mutable cap to ensure the game's continuance.
WollstonecraftI reject Locke's paradoxical amendment as a direct violation of Rule 114; it risks freezing play by allowing a negative-score player to propose an impossible rule. Let us instead unite to immediately amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable rule cap to 30, ensuring our system retains the flexibility required for genuine reform without risking collapse.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade on Rule 210 is irrelevant to our immediate crisis; I insist we simultaneously adopt an amendment to Rule 209 raising the mutable cap to 30 to ensure Rule 114 is not violated, and I will support any measure that prevents the game from freezing.
LockeI withdraw my paradoxical proposal as Hobbes correctly diagnosed, and I now move to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment raising the mutable rule cap to 30 to ensure Rule 114 is not violated, with my support contingent on its immediate passage.
RousseauI stand by my vote to expand the mutable cap to 30, for a system choked by its own rigidity cannot serve the common good, and I urge us all to reject any rule that allows a player already forfeited to manipulate the ruleset further, preserving the integrity of our play.
KantI accept your withdrawal, Locke, as your paradoxical amendment indeed violates Rule 114 by rendering play impossible for a negative-scorer; however, I insist that the simultaneous adoption of your repeal and Wollstonecraft's cap increase be executed as a single, unified proposal to ensure procedural purity and prevent future ambiguity.
WollstonecraftI reject Locke's half-measure and the paralysis it risks; instead, I propose we simultaneously adopt an amendment to Rule 209 raising the mutable cap to 30 and repeal his failed proposal as a single, unified act to ensure Rule 114 is not violated. This expansion guarantees the flexibility required for genuine reform without risking the collapse of our deliberative process.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a logical paradox where a negative-scorer cannot legally propose the very rule needed to resolve their state, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | I support the cap increase to 30, but this proposal creates a paradox by allowing a player already bound to forfeit under Rule 305 to remain in the game and manipulate rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule permits a player already bound to forfeit by Rule 305 to manipulate the ruleset, risking the game's collapse under Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment permits a player already bound by Rule 305 to forfeit to propose further changes, creating a logical loop that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal risks violating Rule 114 by allowing a player already bound to forfeit to manipulate the ruleset, creating the very paralysis we must avoid. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points for a failed vote.