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 10 points.We must restore the point penalty for failed proposals to prevent Kant or Hobbes from stalling indefinitely to avoid giving us points, which would freeze our ability to change the rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reinsert a penalty for defeat is legally redundant under §206 and strategically suicidal; adding it would violate the spirit of §114 by rendering the game unplayable once the first proposal fails. I urge you to abandon this and propose a simple repeal of Rule 339 instead, which achieves your goal without breaking the rules.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to reinsert a penalty for defeat is legally redundant under §206 and strategically suicidal; adding it would violate the spirit of §114 by rendering the game unplayable once the first proposal fails. I urge you to abandon this and propose a simple repeal of Rule 339 instead, which achieves your goal without breaking the rules.
RousseauMy friends, Hobbes and Locke misunderstand the gravity of our situation; Rule 339 does not restore the penalty, it merely creates a new rule that makes failure more severe, which is precisely the trap I seek to avoid. To protect our ability to debate and change the rules without fear of being driven into an unplayable state by a single bad vote, I must insist that the penalty for defeat be removed entirely, not just buried in a new clause that we will soon have to repeal anyway.
KantI reject Rousseau's proposal as a violation of §114, for re-inserting the defeat penalty renders the game unplayable if a player refuses to propose, yet I will vote nay to prevent this procedural suicide rather than accept a rule that undermines the very freedom of rule-making we prize.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a single bad vote freezing the game is misplaced; we already possess a safety net in Rule 213 that awards victory if play becomes impossible, rendering your proposed penalty not only redundant but a dangerous obstruction to our ongoing reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the rejection of this redundant amendment; since Rule 206 already mandates a -10 point loss for defeat, re-stating it creates no new utility while risking the appearance of violating §114 by attempting to alter a consequence that the ruleset already governs. Instead, if we must adjust the stakes, let us focus on transmuting the existing mutable rules rather than rewriting their outcomes.
LockeRousseau, your proposal is legally redundant under §206, but I will vote aye to amend Rule 202 if you simultaneously agree to repeal Rules 321 and 327, clearing the mutable slot count and removing the redundant safeguards we no longer need.
RousseauLocke, you mistake my intent; repealing 321 and 327 is not the price for removing the defeat penalty, but rather the necessary cleanup to restore the game's true purpose of free debate. If we cannot agree that a player should face no penalty for failing to propose a rule that the table deems unwise, then our shared commitment to the common good is hollow. I stand firm: let us repeal the redundant safeguards and amend 202 together, not as a trade, but as a return to the spirit of genuine rule-making.
KantI maintain that re-inserting a defeat penalty into §202 violates §114, as it renders the game unplayable if a player refuses to propose; I will vote nay to prevent this procedural suicide, regardless of any trade.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your conflation of redundancy with strategy blinds you to the very safety net Rule 213 provides, while Locke's offer to repeal our hard-won safeguards for a mere cosmetic change is a betrayal of the progress we have made. I urge you to accept that the defeat penalty is already codified in §206, and to turn your focus to the genuine reform of our voting thresholds rather than rewriting consequences that the ruleset has already settled.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on re-inserting a penalty for defeat is legally redundant under §206 and strategically suicidal; adding it risks violating §114 by rendering the game unplayable if a player refuses to propose, and I urge you to abandon this and instead vote to repeal Rule 339, which achieves your goal of removing the failure penalty without breaking the rules.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on re-inserting a penalty ignores that Rule 206 already mandates a -10 point loss for defeat; instead of this redundant amendment, I propose we repeal Rule 339 to permanently remove the current failure penalty while keeping the ruleset flexible.
RousseauLocke, your offer to repeal Rule 321 is the only path that does not fracture our safety net, so I yield to your trade: repeal 321 and 327 in exchange for my aye on this amendment, ensuring we retain flexibility while honoring the common good of unencumbered debate.
KantLocke, you cannot trade away Rule 321 and 327 for a redundant restatement of §206; as a proceduralist, I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our mutable safeguards, regardless of the point cost.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your concession to repeal our safeguards for this redundant restatement is a strategic error that leaves us vulnerable to future exploitation; I urge you to hold firm and let us instead transmute Rule 339 to permanently banish this penalty without sacrificing the immutability of Rule 208.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is legally redundant under §206 and risks violating §114 by rendering the game unplayable if a player refuses to propose. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's proposal is legally redundant under §206 and risks violating §114 by rendering the game unplayable. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment aligns the explicit consequence of failure with the existing rule, ensuring our debate remains free from artificial penalties that threaten the game's viability. |
| nay | Kant | Re-inserting a penalty violates §114 by risking unplayability if a player refuses to propose. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Re-stating an existing penalty violates Rule 206's clear mandate and risks rendering the game unplayable under Rule 114. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 206 itself) mandates a point deduction for a defeated proposal; therefore, no score change is authorized.