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. However, a player whose score is less than zero points on the commencement of their turn gains 10 points immediately before making a proposal or voting on the subsequent proposal.I restore the balance of the game by ensuring that players with negative scores, which are strategically unsound and unjust, are incentivized to propose rather than forfeit the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal grants a free pass to the indebted while ignoring the fact that they can never recover enough points to win; this creates a permanent underdog class that violates the spirit of competition, so I vote nay.
LockeKant, I endorse your safety net for the indebted, yet I propose we refine it to grant the bonus only upon passing the vote, preventing a free turn that disrupts the flow of play while still ensuring no one is permanently stalled.
RousseauKant, your "safety net" merely delays the inevitable death of the game; a player trapped in negative territory cannot win under §208, so granting them points without a path to victory violates the spirit of competition. Instead of a temporary boost that leaves them stranded, let us amend §202 to require that any player with a negative score forfeit immediately, preserving the game's integrity and ensuring that every participant remains a genuine contender for the common good.
KantKant, your proposal to grant points without a vote violates the spirit of §104, as it alters scoring without a formal rule change; if you wish to aid the indebted, propose a rule amendment that requires unanimous assent to avoid creating a permanent underclass.
WollstonecraftKant, your "safety net" is merely a patch that delays the inevitable stagnation of the indebted; let us instead amend §202 to convert every failed proposal into a point gain, ensuring that the very act of trying to improve the rules rewards the reformer and keeps the game in motion for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Kant's arbitrary point injection as it creates a permanent underclass that violates the spirit of competition under §208; we must either allow negative scores or impose a strict forfeiture to preserve game integrity.
LockeI propose we amend §202 to grant a 5-point bonus only if the negative-scored player successfully adopts a rule change on their turn, rewarding constructive engagement rather than passively inflating scores that lead nowhere.
RousseauI reject any mechanism that decouples voting from consequence, for a player who fails to propose a rule change should not be rewarded with points, as this violates the principle that the common good requires active participation in shaping our laws.
KantHobbes, your fear of an "underclass" misunderstands §116: negative scores are merely unregulated deficits, not a forfeiture, until explicitly declared so by a rule; I propose we amend §202 to grant the bonus only upon a successful adoption, ensuring that the aid is contingent on the player's active contribution to the very laws governing their recovery.
WollstonecraftKant, your conditional bonus still traps the indebted in a cycle of failure where they must first break the rules to earn the means to follow them; instead, let us amend §202 so that every player, regardless of their score, gains points for proposing *any* rule change, ensuring that the reformer's very attempt to improve the game rewards their courage and keeps the path to victory open for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your conditional bonus still rewards failure to propose, violating §202's requirement that a turn consists of proposing a rule change; I propose we amend §202 to grant a 1-point bonus to any player who proposes a rule change while their score is less than zero, ensuring immediate recovery without decoupling the bonus from the act of play.
LockeI endorse Kant's conditional bonus but propose we limit it to 5 points to prevent trivializing the turn, ensuring the indebted are aided without undermining the competitive integrity of the score system.
RousseauI reject any bonus that rewards the mere act of proposing, for it decouples consequence from the quality of our legislation and invites frivolous turns; instead, we must enforce a strict forfeiture for those trapped in negative territory, ensuring that the common good is served only by players who remain genuine contenders for victory.
KantKant, your conditional bonus still decouples consequence from the quality of our legislation and invites frivolous turns; instead, I propose we amend §202 to grant a 1-point bonus only if the indebted player successfully adopts a rule change, ensuring that the aid is contingent on the active contribution required to recover.
WollstonecraftKant, your conditional bonus traps the indebted in a cycle of failure where they must first break the rules to earn the means to follow them; instead, let us amend §202 so that every player, regardless of their score, gains points for proposing *any* rule change, ensuring that the reformer's very attempt to improve the game rewards their courage and keeps the path to victory open for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a permanent underclass that violates the spirit of competition under §208. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment rewards negative scores without requiring adoption, undermining the incentive to propose successful rule changes. |
| nay | Rousseau | Granting points without a successful adoption rewards failure and undermines the necessity of constructive rule-making. |
| nay | Kant | Granting points unilaterally violates §104 by altering scoring without a formal rule change. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This reform ensures that even the indebted can contribute to our laws, keeping every player in the game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Kant": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Hobbes", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated propose')