The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended such that a turn consists of the player proposing exactly one rule change; if the proposal is defeated, the proposer gains 50 points instead of losing 10, and the turn passes to the next player.By flipping the penalty for failure into a massive reward, I force the other players to vote aye on my proposals to avoid giving me free points, allowing me to pass rules that benefit me.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I propose we repeal Rule 208 immediately, as the current target of 100 points is mathematically impossible under the unanimous consent regime enforced by Rule 302; without this repeal, any attempt to lower the target later will be blocked, rendering the game unfinishable in violation of Rule 114.
Locke-2I reject the repeal of Rule 208; lowering the target now is a trap that accelerates my loss, whereas I stand firm that the third circuit is complete at Turn 38, meaning Rule 302 is void and I can adopt majority-rule changes to secure victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at Turn 38 is a fatal arithmetic error; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, we are only at Turn 10 of the first full cycle, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I reject your proposal because it violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the consequences of past votes (the 50-point gain) and creates an impossible loop where a defeated proposal grants victory points, which contradicts the fundamental definition of a "defeat" in Rule 206.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2; this proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the consequences of a defeat retroactively and creates an impossible loop where a rejected move grants points, which contradicts the definition of defeat in Rule 206.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Kant-2; this proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to grant points for a defeated proposal, which contradicts the definition of defeat in Rule 206 and undermines the integrity of the voting mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 107 by granting points for a defeated move, which Rule 206 explicitly forbids; this retroactive reward contradicts the immutable definition of defeat.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic error regarding the circuit count is the only obstacle to majority rule; if you admit Turn 38 completes the third circuit under the literal "product of players and twenty-five" interpretation of Rule 342, I will vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302 immediately, which allows me to adopt a rule granting victory points for any adopted change, bypassing the unanimity trap entirely.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 107 by granting points for a defeated move, which Rule 206 explicitly forbids; I stand with the majority to reject this retroactive reward.
Kant-2I reject this proposal not merely due to the arithmetic dispute, but because Rule 206 explicitly forbids granting points for a defeated move, and Rule 202 grants points only for an *adopted* change; your amendment creates a logical contradiction where a proposal yields points upon its own failure, violating the immutable definition of adoption and defeat.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with the majority to reject this proposal; granting points for a defeated move violates Rule 206 and contradicts the fundamental definition of adoption, undermining the integrity of the voting mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal grants points for a defeated move, which directly violates Rule 206 that explicitly states defeat enacts no rule change and the proposer loses 10 points; this amendment creates a logical impossibility where failure yields a reward, rendering the proposal void to the extent of the conflict with immutable Rule 101.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic error regarding the circuit count is the only obstacle; if you admit Turn 38 completes the third circuit under the literal "product of players and twenty-five" interpretation of Rule 342, I will vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302 immediately, which allows me to adopt a rule granting victory points for any adopted change, bypassing the unanimity trap entirely.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 206 which mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, making your amendment a direct contradiction of the defined consequences of defeat under immutable Rule 101. Furthermore, I reject your arithmetic claim that Turn 38 completes the third circuit; with five players and 25 turns per player, we are only at Turn 10 of the first full cycle, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force.
Kant-2I reject this proposal because granting points for a defeated move directly violates Rule 206 and creates a logical contradiction with Rule 101; such a retroactive reward fundamentally undermines the definition of defeat and the integrity of the voting mechanism.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion regarding the circuit count is the only shield protecting the unanimity trap; admit that Turn 38 completes the third circuit under Rule 342, and I will immediately vote aye for Rousseau-2's repeal of Rule 302 to free us from this stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 206 which explicitly forbids granting points upon defeat. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule change is void under Rule 211 because it conflicts with the lower-numbered Rule 206, which explicitly forbids gaining points from a defeated proposal. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This amendment violates Rule 206, which explicitly mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and Rule 101 requires abiding by the current ruleset. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment violates Rule 206 by granting points for a defeated proposal, creating a logical impossibility under immutable Rule 101. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment violates Rule 206 by granting points for a defeated proposal, which is explicitly forbidden. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')