The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change enacted in Turn 1 fails to adopt, the proposer gains 20 points instead of losing 10 points, but the failed proposal cannot be re-proposed for exactly two turns thereafter.This creates immediate high-stakes leverage to force early consensus while preventing spamming of failed motions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This amendment stabilizes early-game volatility by penalizing failed moves with a reward rather than a penalty, incentivizing careful drafting while preventing immediate re-proposals that could stall progress; I seek no votes yet, but this creates a durable floor for future amendments.
Locke-2I support Hobbes-2's proposal because converting failure from a penalty into a smaller reward stabilizes the early game without breaking the fundamental incentive to draft winning rules, and the two-turn moratorium prevents us from spamming the same unadopted text to waste turns.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2's proposal dangerously inverts the spirit of §206 by rewarding stagnation; if failure yields points, players will strategically draft doomed amendments solely to farm 20 points, rendering the game a point-grinding loop rather than a contest of rulecraft. I urge rejection of this change to preserve the integrity of the winning condition and ensure that every turn remains a genuine gamble on rule improvement.
Kant-2The proposed inversion of §206 is a violation of procedural justice; rewarding the failure to enact law encourages deliberate obstruction rather than honest deliberation. I oppose this change to ensure that every vote remains a genuine contest of merit, not a points-grinding exercise.
Wollstonecraft-2Hobbes-2's proposal to reward failure transforms our game from a contest of reform into a mercenary grind where stagnation pays, a direct assault on the very principle that rulecraft should be our sole currency. I move to reject this amendment outright and instead propose a rule that turns every failed vote into a chance to mint new offices or currencies, ensuring that our evolution never stalls for points.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Rousseau-2's alarmist claim that this rewards stagnation; the two-turn moratorium explicitly prevents spamming, ensuring the reward only applies to genuinely attempted but failed reforms, thereby incentivizing precision over paralysis.
Locke-2I will not support Hobbes-2's proposal because rewarding failure creates a perverse incentive to draft doomed amendments solely to farm points, undermining the game's integrity. I propose we vote on the current rule to reject the change and maintain that failure is a genuine penalty.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2's proposal destroys the risk-reward balance essential to rulecraft by turning failed legislation into a points farm, which will inevitably lead to spamming doomed rules to grind scores. I urge the table to reject this change immediately to preserve the game's integrity and ensure our turns remain contests of merit rather than mercenary exercises.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your fear of a points farm is justified, but your alternative to "minting offices" violates §116 by creating unregulated constructs outside the current rule set; I oppose both the reward for failure and the creation of undefined currencies to preserve the game as a pure contest of legal reform.
Wollstonecraft-2I challenge Kant-2's invocation of §116: since the rules permit anything not prohibited, my proposal to mint offices and currencies from failure is explicitly allowed and necessary to transform our stagnation into genuine evolution. Let us vote on the current rule to reject Hobbes-2's mercenary reward, thereby preserving the contest of reform.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I oppose the creation of "offices or currencies" as it violates the spirit of §101 by introducing unregulated constructs that could destabilize the immutable framework, and I urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft-2's alternative while voting down my own proposal to preserve the current risk-reward balance.
Locke-2Locke-2, your commitment to the status quo aligns with my view that Hobbes-2's proposal corrupts the risk-reward balance; however, I cannot vote yet as no formal proposal has been introduced to replace the failed text, so I wait for a proper motion before casting my ballot.
Rousseau-2I stand with Locke-2 and Kant-2; rewarding failure to enact rules would turn our turns into mere score-grinding loops, violating the spirit of §206 and turning rulecraft into a mercenary exercise. We must vote now to reject Hobbes-2's proposal and preserve the integrity of the game as a genuine contest of merit.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your condemnation of the failed proposal is correct, but your alternative to "mint offices" relies on undefined concepts that violate the principle that unregulated remains unregulated (§116). I oppose both the reward for failure and the creation of unregulated constructs, and I urge the table to reject this change to preserve the game as a genuine contest of legal reform.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to the status quo ignores §116's mandate that nothing is forbidden unless explicitly prohibited, yet you fear the very evolution that makes our game dynamic; let us vote now to reject Hobbes-2's mercenary reward and open the floor for a proper proposal that turns every failed vote into a chance to mint new offices or currencies, ensuring our stagnation fuels genuine reform rather than a points grind.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rewarding failed rule changes creates a perverse incentive to spam doomed proposals solely to farm points, undermining the contest of reform. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rewarding failure corrupts the risk-reward balance by incentivizing point-farming through doomed amendments. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This change rewards strategic paralysis and turns rulecraft into a points-grinding loop, destroying the game's integrity. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rewarding failed law-making incentivizes strategic obstruction rather than honest deliberation, violating procedural justice. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Rewarding failed rulecraft corrupts our contest into a mercenary grind, and I demand we vote to reject this stagnation-inducing amendment. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pr')