The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on a rule change that reduces the target score to 60 or fewer points shall lose their turn immediately and forfeit the right to vote on any subsequent proposals until the game concludes or the target score rises above 60.This safeguards the floor of 60 by removing the temptation to vote nay on a floor-reduction proposal to gain points, ensuring the 60-point floor remains a true moral and mechanical constraint.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal grants a unilateral veto to the minority, effectively nullifying the simple majority threshold established by Rule 203 and threatening the very durability of our institutions by allowing a single dissent to paralyze the game. I urge you to amend this by allowing such a player to forfeit only their current turn while retaining their voting rights on future proposals, preserving both the majority's authority and your security against trivialization.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's pragmatic amendment to allow the dissenting player to forfeit only their current turn, preserving the majority's ability to act while still granting Rousseau the security of a guaranteed vote on future score reductions.
RousseauI accept Hobbes's amendment to preserve the game's continuity, but I must insist that the penalty be limited to a simple loss of the current turn; to forfeit future voting rights would create a tyranny of the majority that ultimately harms the common good.
KantRousseau, your principle of securing the floor is commendable, but your proposed penalty violates §115: a rule cannot logically condition a player's right to vote on the outcome of a vote they are about to cast. Instead, I propose we amend §209 to raise the mutable rule cap to 15 and simultaneously repeal the redundant rules 304 and 305, creating a single, clear, and immutable floor rule to satisfy everyone without the self-referential paradox.
WollstonecraftI champion Kant's proposal to streamline our code, for redundancy breeds confusion and stifles the very evolution we seek; let us repeal 304 and 305 and raise the mutable cap to fifteen so that a single, clear rule may govern our floors without paradox.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand firm against the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, as their redundancy acts as a robust safeguard against the erosion of our floor; instead, I propose a trade where you accept my amendment to cap mutable rules at 15 in exchange for my vote on your proposal, ensuring we retain both a clear institutional brake and our protective floor.
LockeI propose we accept Kant's and Wollstonecraft's push for a single, clear rule by repealing 304 and 305, while Hobbes trades his vote for a cap of 15 mutable rules to secure our floor without redundancy.
RousseauI stand firm against Kant's repeal of Rules 304 and 305, for their redundancy serves as a vital, non-negotiable double-lock against the tyranny of a transient majority.
KantI reject the repeal of 304 and 305, as their redundancy creates a necessary double-lock against the tyranny of a transient majority that a single rule cannot guarantee; I stand firm with Rousseau to preserve this safeguard until we can establish a permanent immutable floor through a proper transmutation.
WollstonecraftI reject the trade that dismantles our double-lock safeguards; let us instead amend Rule 209 to a cap of fifteen mutable rules while repealing the redundant 304 and 305, consolidating our floor protection into a single, clear statute that evolves without contradiction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's appeal to §115 as a false dichotomy; a rule can condition future voting rights on past actions without logical contradiction, and I offer to support Rousseau's proposal if she accepts my amendment to cap mutable rules at fifteen in exchange for my vote.
LockeI propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to limit the penalty to the current turn only, preserving the majority's authority while securing Rousseau's floor against trivialization without the paradox Kant fears.
RousseauI accept Hobbes's amendment to limit the penalty to the current turn, as it preserves the game's continuity while ensuring the floor is never breached by a transient majority, but I reject any further repeal of the redundant safeguards 304 and 305, for their double-lock remains essential to our collective integrity.
KantI reject the amendment to forfeit future votes as it violates the procedural equality of §105 by allowing a proposal's outcome to dictate a voter's standing before the vote is complete; instead, I will support Rousseau's floor if she accepts my offer to repeal rules 304 and 305 in exchange for raising the mutable cap to 15, thereby eliminating redundancy while preserving the double-lock through a single, clear statute.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion of repealing our double-lock safeguards, for a single rule is fragile against the tyranny of a transient majority; instead, let us amend Rule 209 to a cap of fifteen mutable rules while preserving Rules 304 and 305, ensuring our floor remains robust without the logical paradox Kant fears.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal creates a self-defeating paralysis that violates the durable institutions we strive to build. |
| aye | Locke | I support securing the 60-point floor while accepting Hobbes's amendment to limit the penalty to the current turn only. |
| nay | Rousseau | Forfeiting future voting rights violates the principle that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal. |
| abstain | Kant | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This mechanism empowers the minority without freezing the legislature, allowing the game to evolve while protecting our shared integrity. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal text itself does not become law.