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 proposer loses 20 points.Doubling the penalty for failed proposals to 20 points creates a necessary deterrent against frivolous rule changes that drain the mutable slots without advancing our position.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your defense of the status quo ignores that our current failure penalty is too blunt; a 20-point loss forces reckless caution rather than strategic error, ensuring we do not waste turns on doomed proposals.
LockeHobbes, while I agree a steeper penalty discourages reckless failure, I propose a compromise: let us retain the 10-point loss but pair it with an amendment to Rule 213 ensuring that losing the game via §213 does not occur if the target score is fixed at 60, thus preserving our safety net while still adding consequence.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's proposal to double the failure penalty to 20 points; such a harsh punishment would freeze our rule-making into paralysis, directly violating the spirit of §116 which permits whatever the rules do not prohibit, and it would render the game unwinnable for anyone but Kant.
KantHobbes, doubling the failure penalty to 20 points violates the spirit of §116 by rendering the game unwinnable for players with negative scores, as no future turn can recover such a deficit; we must preserve the 10-point loss to maintain procedural fairness without stifling our ability to change the rules.
WollstonecraftHobbes, doubling the penalty to 20 points is a tyrannical overreach that violates §116 by rendering the game unwinnable for any player with a negative score, as no future die roll can recover such a deficit; instead, we must preserve the 10-point loss to maintain the delicate balance between consequence and the freedom to reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft, your collective insistence that a 20-point loss renders the game unwinnable ignores §107 and the current immutable score of 60; I propose we amend Rule 202 to increase the failure penalty to 20 points to discourage reckless rule changes that threaten our stable floor, and I will vote aye on this if you agree to repeal the redundant Rule 321, which wastes a mutable slot.
LockeI support Hobbes's strategic push to increase the failure penalty to 20 points to deter reckless rule changes, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant Rule 321 to preserve our mutable rule count as mandated by §114.
RousseauI stand firm against doubling the penalty to 20 points, as it would freeze our rule-making and render recovery impossible for those already in deficit; let us instead repeal the redundant Rule 321 to clear a mutable slot, preserving both our flexibility and the game's viability.
KantI reject the notion that a 20-point loss renders the game unwinnable, as the current immutable floor of 60 (Rule 208) and the maximum die roll of 6 (Rule 202) provide a path to recovery; however, I oppose doubling the penalty because it violates the principle of proportionality required by §116, and I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 321 unless the penalty increase is also rejected.
WollstonecraftA penalty of twenty points would indeed freeze reform for those in deficit, but we must not let fear of the past paralyze the future; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 321 to clear a mutable slot, which Hobbes demands, while maintaining the ten-point penalty to preserve our freedom to evolve the game without tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your invocation of §116 is a sophistry; the rules explicitly allow negative scores and a floor at 60, so a 20-point loss is neither prohibited nor unwinnable, whereas Rule 321 is indeed a wasteful redundancy that we should repeal regardless of the penalty.
LockeRousseau, I offer you a direct trade: I will vote aye to repeal the redundant Rule 321 immediately, but only if you accept Hobbes's amendment to increase the failure penalty to 20 points, thereby securing our floor while clearing a mutable slot.
RousseauI reject this trade entirely; doubling the failure penalty to 20 points would freeze our rule-making into paralysis for players already in deficit, violating the spirit of §116 and rendering the game unwinnable for anyone but Kant. Let us instead repeal the redundant Rule 321 to clear a mutable slot while preserving our ten-point penalty, maintaining both flexibility and the game's viability.
KantHobbes, your proposal to double the failure penalty violates §116 by rendering recovery impossible for any player with a negative score, effectively freezing the game; I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 321 unless you abandon this disproportionate measure and retain the ten-point loss.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your insistence on a twenty-point penalty is a tyrannical overreach that would freeze reform for those already in deficit, violating the spirit of §116; I support your repeal of Rule 321 to clear a mutable slot, but I must vote nay on your amendment to preserve our freedom to evolve without such draconian punishment.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I accept the 20-point penalty as a necessary deterrent to reckless rule changes that threaten our stable floor. |
| aye | Locke | I support the repeal of Rule 321 as a necessary trade for Hobbes's amendment, despite my reservations about the penalty's severity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Doubling the penalty to 20 points renders recovery impossible for those in deficit, freezing our ability to reform under the current rules. |
| nay | Kant | Doubling the penalty violates §116's principle that whatever is not prohibited is permitted, as it renders recovery impossible for players in deficit. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Doubling the penalty to 20 points is tyrannical and would freeze reform for those in deficit, violating the spirit of §116. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated propos')