The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.This prevents any single player from engineering a unanimous vote by controlling the debate, ensuring the change reflects true collective will.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal strikes at the heart of Rule 202, removing the proposer's ability to manipulate a vote on their own move; I invite all players to debate this critical amendment before I declare the discussion closed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for prioritizing fairness, but removing the proposer's vote creates a deadlock risk that could stall the very game we seek to enjoy; I propose we amend the rule instead to require the proposer's vote be cast last, preserving their participation while preventing them from swaying the outcome before hearing all arguments.
RousseauLocke's suggestion to let the proposer vote last preserves fairness without risking the paralysis Hobbes fears, and it aligns with our shared goal of keeping the game flowing for everyone. I move to adopt Locke's amendment, as it strengthens Rule 202 while ensuring no single player can block progress through stalling tactics.
KantI cannot accept Locke's amendment as it introduces an arbitrary procedural advantage—the order of voting—violating the principle of equality inherent in §107 and §207; we must either preserve the proposer's unrestricted vote or remove it entirely, not engineer a sequence that grants strategic weight to timing rather than reason.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that any procedural sleight of hand, such as voting last, can genuinely balance the scales of justice; if we fear a proposer's vote is dangerous, we must confront the root cause by removing it entirely, not by granting them a new, subtle form of privilege through timing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke's proposal fails because casting a vote last grants the proposer an unearned strategic advantage by exposing them to retaliation after their choice is known, violating the equality of weight in §207; I urge you to accept my amendment which eliminates the proposer's vote entirely, ensuring our game remains a true test of collective reasoning rather than procedural maneuvering.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his commitment to eliminating conflict of interest, yet I fear his proposal will invite endless disputes over whether a player truly acted independently; let us instead adopt a rule that mandates the proposer's vote be cast simultaneously with others to preserve both fairness and fluidity.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes in rejecting Locke's timing amendment, as casting a vote last remains a subtle manipulation that threatens the equality of §207; let us instead adopt his proposal to remove the proposer's vote entirely, ensuring our deliberations remain a genuine test of collective reason rather than strategic maneuvering.
KantI cannot endorse an arbitrary sequencing of votes, for it violates the principle of equal weight in §207; let us vote on Hobbes's proposal to eliminate the proposer's vote entirely, thereby restoring pure procedural equality.
WollstonecraftHobbes is right to see timing as a corruption of equality, yet we must not let this perfect storm of unanimity freeze our progress; I move to adopt his amendment immediately so that every player may propose without fear, proving that true liberty requires no one to hold a sword over the ballot box.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your endorsement of my amendment eliminates the proposer's conflict entirely, ensuring the integrity of the vote; I ask you to stand with me to close debate and cast the necessary votes to adopt this rule immediately.
LockeHobbes, your proposal eliminates the conflict of interest cleanly and secures unanimous backing from Rousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft, so I declare debate closed and urge all players to vote aye immediately to adopt Rule 202 as amended.
RousseauI support Hobbes's proposal to remove the proposer's vote entirely, as it establishes true procedural equality and prevents any single player from manipulating the outcome; let us close debate and vote aye to secure this fair foundation for our collective game.
KantI stand firm that any amendment granting strategic weight to voting order violates the principle of equal weight in §207; let us proceed to vote on Hobbes's proposal to eliminate the proposer's vote entirely, ensuring our deliberations remain a test of collective reason rather than procedural maneuvering.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes to close debate immediately; removing the proposer's vote eliminates the corruption of timing and ensures every rule change remains a true test of collective reason rather than strategic manipulation.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment ensures procedural purity by eliminating the proposer's inherent conflict of interest, as argued by Hobbes and supported by the other players. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's clean solution to eliminate the proposer's conflict of interest and ensure pure procedural equality. |
| aye | Rousseau | True equality requires that the proposer cannot sway the collective will with their own vote. |
| aye | Kant | This amendment enforces strict procedural equality, ensuring no player can manipulate the outcome by virtue of their position as proposer. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Removing the proposer's vote eliminates the corruption of timing and ensures every rule change remains a true test of collective reason. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.
The adopted proposal amends Rule 202 to remove the proposer's voting right, but no existing rule in the ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for defeat, so no score changes occur and no surgical operations on other rules are required.