The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.This creates a mandatory cool-down period after penalties to prevent strategic retaliation and ensures a fairer pace for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to silence penalized players undermines the very institution of the vote we established; while I agree that a penalty should carry some consequence, a total bar on proposing violates the spirit of Rule 101 and risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible for those currently in the hole. I urge us to amend this to a simple delay of one turn rather than a complete prohibition.
LockeHobbes, your suggestion to replace a total ban with a one-turn delay is a prudent compromise that preserves the integrity of our deliberative process while still imposing a meaningful consequence on penalized players; I endorse this amendment to ensure that no single player's failure can permanently silence their ability to shape our shared future.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this penalty entirely, for it creates a dangerous asymmetry where one player's failure to govern becomes a weapon to silence their peers, which contradicts my proposal in turn 7 that failure should be a modest cost rather than a silencing mechanism.
KantI endorse Locke's proposal to impose a consequence on penalized players, yet I cannot accept the proposed total prohibition, as Rule 206 already mandates a point penalty that should suffice without further silencing; I urge you to amend the rule to require only a one-turn delay before the penalized player may propose again, ensuring they remain bound by the law while preserving the possibility of future governance.
WollstonecraftLocke and Kant, while a delay is prudent, the true reform lies in eliminating the penalty for failed proposals entirely; if we cannot agree to remove the cost of dissent, at least let us amend Rule 204 to ensure that penalized players retain their right to propose immediately, for a game where one cannot speak after a mistake is no longer a game of reform, but a tyranny of the successful.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to delay penalized players' proposals is prudent, yet I urge you to amend it to a full one-turn postponement rather than an immediate ban, ensuring no player is ever barred from proposing by the rules of the game they helped create.
LockeI commend Rousseau for highlighting the asymmetry of failure, yet Wollstonecraft's call to eliminate the penalty entirely risks undermining the deterrent against reckless proposals; I propose we adopt Kant's one-turn delay as a middle ground that respects our shared commitment to Rule 114 while ensuring no single player can be permanently silenced by a momentary setback.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment in its entirety, for imposing any additional penalty on a player who has already suffered a point deduction creates a cruel asymmetry that contradicts the spirit of Rule 207; if we are to preserve the common good, let us instead amend Rule 206 to remove the point penalty entirely, ensuring that the cost of failed governance remains purely temporal rather than cumulative.
KantI endorse Locke's proposal to delay penalized players, as a one-turn postponement balances the need for consequences with the imperative of Rule 114, ensuring no player can be permanently barred from proposing and thus preserving the possibility of future rule changes.
WollstonecraftI reject any rule that penalizes the voice of dissent, for silence born of error is the tyranny of the successful; let us amend Rule 204 to remove the point penalty entirely, ensuring that the cost of failed governance remains only the loss of a turn, not the forfeiture of our shared power to reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to adopt Locke's one-turn delay as a prudent compromise, but I must insist that any such restriction be explicitly limited to preventing immediate re-proposal rather than barring future turns, lest we violate Rule 114 by rendering the game's evolution impossible for a player.
LockeI commend Rousseau's principled stance against accumulating penalties, yet Wollstonecraft's proposal to eliminate the point penalty entirely risks removing the necessary deterrent against reckless governance; I propose we adopt Kant's one-turn delay as a compromise that imposes a meaningful consequence without silencing a player's voice or violating Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for adding a prohibition or delay to penalized players creates a cruel asymmetry that contradicts my successful amendment in Turn 7: if failure is to be a modest cost of 5 points rather than a weapon of silence, we must preserve the right to propose immediately after every defeat.
KantRousseau, your argument conflates a procedural consequence with a cumulative penalty; a one-turn delay does not compound the score loss mandated by Rule 206, but rather ensures the integrity of the deliberative process by preventing immediate re-proposal of a failed measure.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this delay entirely, for a penalty that silences the voice of reform is no punishment but a tyranny; let us instead amend Rule 206 to eliminate the point cost for failed proposals, ensuring that the pursuit of a fairer ruleset never carries the risk of losing one's right to speak.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This delay prevents immediate re-proposal while preserving the right to govern in future turns, aligning with the need for durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise respects your cap on penalties while preventing immediate re-proposal, preserving Rule 114 without silencing dissent. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adding a delay to penalized players creates a cruel asymmetry that contradicts my Turn 7 amendment ensuring failure remains a modest cost rather than a weapon of silence. |
| aye | Kant | A one-turn delay prevents immediate re-proposal of failed measures, balancing consequence with the preservation of future agency required by Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I oppose any rule that silences reformers after a single turn, as true liberty requires the uninterrupted right to challenge tyranny. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name any existing rule by number to repeal or amend, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no standing rule awards or deducts points upon adoption.