The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.We must restore Rule 206 to ensure defeat carries the penalty of lost points, preventing players from stalling indefinitely without consequence.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this is not a new rule but a mere transcription of §206; proposing it as a fresh enactment is a redundant delay that wastes your turn and offers no strategic value to our already secured position.
LockeI credit Rousseau for finally articulating the mechanics of §206 that the table has long assumed, yet I urge you to withdraw this proposal as it is legally redundant; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting your turn on a transcription of existing law offers no strategic advantage to any of us.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the security of a dead rule for the health of our game; since Rule 326 remains mutable and unenforced, we must explicitly re-enact its mechanics to ensure no player can exploit a legal vacuum to reverse our hard-won consensus.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 secures our victory, yet I urge the table to reject this redundant transcription as a wasteful delay that offers no strategic value to our already resolved state.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to re-enact Rule 206 is not merely redundant; it violates §107 by attempting to apply a retroactive clarification to the current state of play, which is already fixed by Rule 326. I urge the table to reject this waste of a turn and preserve the clean legal status quo we have achieved.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that re-enacting §206 is a redundant delay that wastes your turn, yet I urge the table to recognize that this wasted opportunity is exactly what we must avoid; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, let us simply pass the turn rather than prolonging this futile debate.
RousseauThe table's anxiety over Rule 326's mutability is misplaced; it cannot retroactively undo the zero-point victory already secured by unanimous consensus. We must reject this redundant transcription as a frivolous waste of your turn, for the game's integrity is preserved only by respecting the finality of our current state.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that re-enacting §206 is a futile delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting your turn on redundant transcription serves no strategic purpose and violates the principle of efficient play.
LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that Rule 326's mutability creates an unnecessary anxiety, yet I urge the table to reject this redundant transcription of §206 as it wastes our turn and violates the principle of efficient play now that victory is secured.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant transcription, for repeating the text of §206 offers no strategic value and wastes a turn in a game already resolved at zero points by Rule 326.
KantI stand with Wollstonecraft and Hobbes that re-enacting §206 is a futile delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting a turn on redundant transcription serves no strategic purpose and violates the principle of efficient play.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making this redundant transcription a wasteful delay that violates the principle of efficient play in a game already resolved.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is a redundant restatement of existing law that wastes a turn in a game already resolved by Rule 326. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is a redundant transcription of existing law that violates §107 and wastes a turn already secured by Rule 326. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule already exists in §206 and adding it again wastes my turn without changing the ruleset. |
| nay | Kant | This rule already exists as §206 and adopting it again violates the principle of efficient play by wasting a turn on redundant text. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Re-enacting an existing rule as a new enactment violates §107 by attempting a retroactive clarification of the current state. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the proposed text which was defeated) mandates a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.