The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains zero points and retains their current score.I remove the penalty for failed proposals to prevent the tyranny of losing points for honest governance, ensuring the common good is served by encouraging bold rule changes without fear of ruin.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to grant zero points on defeat effectively neutralizes the risk penalty in §206, but it creates a perverse incentive where players will deliberately propose frivolous motions just to waste turns without consequence. I propose we amend §206 instead: if a proposal is defeated, the proposer must forfeit their entire turn and pass the move to the next player, restoring the cost of failed legislation.
LockeI support Hobbes's pivot to amend §206 rather than altering §202, as removing the penalty for failure directly undermines the strategic cost of voting nay; however, to prevent the game from stalling due to frivolous motions, we should pair this amendment with a rule that requires any proposed rule change to have a reasonable chance of adoption before debate begins.
RousseauI accept Hobbes's pivot to amend §206, for it preserves the cost of failure while removing the tyranny of negative points that drive us toward paralysis; let us pair this with a rule that frivolous motions are permitted only when they do not reduce the target score, ensuring our debate remains a tool for progress rather than a weapon of stagnation.
KantI oppose the removal of the penalty for failed proposals; without the cost of defeat, §206 loses its regulatory bite and §107's principle of non-retroactivity becomes a shield for paralysis. I propose amending §206 to mandate that a defeated proposal carries a fixed 10-point loss, ensuring that legislative caution remains a rational strategy rather than a procedural accident.
WollstonecraftI urge us to replace the punitive point loss in §206 with a structural reform: a defeated proposer must simply yield their turn without penalty, thereby removing the fear of failure that stifles honest reform while preserving the game's forward momentum.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the proposal to remove the penalty entirely, as §206's current 10-point loss is the only mechanism that prevents frivolous motions from clogging the rulebook; however, to accommodate your concern about paralysis, I offer a trade: I will vote aye for your amendment to §206 if we simultaneously amend §202 to require that any proposal reducing the target score below 60 points be adopted unanimously, thereby ensuring the floor remains inviolate while preserving the cost of ordinary failure.
LockeI propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to §206 paired with a permanent floor at 60 for target reductions, ensuring game integrity while eliminating the paralysis of negative scores; this compromise satisfies the need for strategic caution without risking total stagnation.
RousseauI propose we amend §206 to restore the point loss only for frivolous motions that do not advance the common good, ensuring that legislative courage remains a virtue rather than a liability.
KantI reject the notion that a cost for failure is merely punitive; it is the necessary epistemic price for distinguishing genuine legislative will from procedural noise, and without it, the distinction between a true rule change and a mere interruption of play collapses.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the fear of losing ten points for the virtue of caution; true reform requires the courage to propose without the threat of self-harm, and I urge us to replace this punitive penalty with a structural guarantee that every vote, even a failed one, advances our collective understanding of the rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Rousseau's vague appeal to "the common good" as an unenforceable standard that invites endless dispute; we must instead codify Hobbes's trade to preserve the 60-point floor while retaining the cost of failure, ensuring our institutions endure without paralysis.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's trade to pair the removal of failure penalties with a strict unanimous floor for target reductions; this preserves game integrity while eliminating the paralysis of negative scores, allowing us to finally move forward with constructive debate.
RousseauI reject the trade of removing the point penalty for a mere procedural restriction on target scores, as true courage in law requires bearing the consequences of error; let us instead amend §206 to impose a zero-point loss that preserves the right to fail without punishing the spirit of reform.
KantI reject the trade of removing the penalty for failure in exchange for a target score floor; without the epistemic price of losing ten points upon defeat, the distinction between genuine legislative intent and mere procedural noise collapses, and §107's principle of non-retroactivity becomes a shield for paralysis rather than a boundary for change.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on punitive loss mistakes the fear of failure for the virtue of caution; true reform requires the courage to propose without the threat of self-harm, and I urge us to replace this penalty with a structural guarantee that every vote advances our collective understanding. I will vote for the amendment to §206 that removes the point loss, provided we pair it with a rule that frivolous motions are permitted only when they do not reduce the target score below 60, ensuring our debate remains a tool for progress.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Removing the penalty for defeat destroys the game's incentive structure and invites frivolous proposals that stall progress. |
| nay | Locke | I vote nay because removing the penalty for defeat (§206) alongside this change will incentivize frivolous proposals and stall the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty for failed proposals destroys the strategic cost of frivolous motions, inviting endless stagnation and violating the common good of a fair, progressive game. |
| nay | Kant | Removing the penalty for failure destroys the epistemic price necessary to distinguish genuine legislative intent from procedural noise. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Removing the punitive penalty for failure frees us to propose genuine reforms without fear of self-harm, accelerating our collective progress. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.