The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 313 is enacted to require that any rule change which alters a player's penalty points for a failed proposal must also provide a mechanism to restore the original penalty if the change is later repealed, ensuring that strategic adaptations do not permanently disadvantage players who voted against the initial reform.This ensures fairness by preventing permanent asymmetries when rules are repealed, protecting players from unintended long-term penalties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as it introduces a complex, unregulated restoration mechanism that violates Rule 116 and creates an infinite loop of amendments; instead, I propose amending Rule 206 to clarify that penalty adjustments are final upon adoption, preserving the durability of our institutions without such retroactive safeguards.
LockeRousseau, your concern for penal symmetry is vital; I propose we amend this to require restoration only if the repeal itself is adopted, ensuring stability without the chaos of retroactive loops.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this restoration mechanism as it violates Rule 117 by attempting to govern the repeal of a repeal, which creates an infinite regress of self-referential amendments; instead, we must accept that strategic costs are the price of change, and fairness lies in the transparency of the current rules, not in retroactive fixes that freeze the game's evolution.
KantI propose amending the proposed rule to specify that the restoration mechanism applies only to penalties incurred prior to the repeal, thereby preventing infinite regress while ensuring that temporary procedural shifts do not permanently alter the material consequences of past dissent, which is essential for a rule of law that respects historical commitments.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of infinite regress ignores the reality that our current system (Rule 206) already permanently penalizes dissenters for failed reforms, creating a lasting advantage for those who can impose change; let us amend this proposal to require only that any repeal of a penalty-adjusting rule restores the original penalty to all players, ensuring fairness without freezing the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reliance on a hypothetical Rule 117 is unfounded and your refusal to address the asymmetry of Rule 206 threatens to freeze our institutions in a state of imbalance; I urge you to amend your proposal to require that any repeal automatically restores the original penalty, ensuring that the durability of our rules does not come at the cost of permanent strategic advantage for a minority.
LockeI commend Rousseau's intent to ensure fairness, but I urge us to adopt Kant's precise amendment limiting restoration to penalties incurred prior to repeal, which prevents the infinite regress Hobbes rightly fears while addressing Wollstonecraft's valid concern about historical advantage without freezing our game's evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any attempt to retroactively restore penalties, for such a mechanism violates the immutable principle that rule changes govern only the future, and true fairness lies in accepting the current rules as the common good rather than seeking perpetual correction of past decisions.
KantI reject the proposal entirely; to mandate a restoration mechanism would be to violate Rule 107 by imposing a retroactive effect on the moment of repeal, and it risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future repeals impermissible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your rigidity regarding retroactivity blinds you to the tyranny of permanent asymmetry; let us amend the proposal to require that any repeal of a penalty rule automatically restores the original penalty to all players, ensuring that no dissent is ever permanently punished by the very reforms they opposed.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this retroactive restoration as a direct violation of Rule 107, which strictly prohibits rule changes from governing anything prior to their adoption; instead, we must accept that the current asymmetry of Rule 206 is the final, durable state of our institutions, and any attempt to rewrite the past undermines the very stability we have worked to achieve.
LockeRousseau, your steadfast adherence to Rule 107 renders your proposal unworkable as written, yet I commend your desire for fairness and will endorse Kant's amendment to limit restoration to pre-repeal penalties, which satisfies our need for symmetry without violating the prohibition on retroactivity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject all attempts at retroactive restoration, for they violate Rule 107 and threaten Rule 114 by potentially freezing future rule changes; true fairness lies in accepting the current rules as the common good rather than seeking to correct past decisions.
KantI must reject any proposal mandating penalty restoration upon repeal, as it violates Rule 107 by imposing a retroactive effect on past turns; true procedural integrity requires that once a rule is adopted, its consequences for all subsequent turns remain final and unalterable by later repeal.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to correct the permanent asymmetry of Rule 206 creates a tyranny where the proposer's victory permanently shackles the dissenters; let us amend the proposal to require that any repeal of a penalty rule restores the original penalty to all players, ensuring that no one bears a lifelong debt to a reform they opposed.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to impose retroactive effects on penalties already incurred. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to impose retroactive effects on past turns. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to impose retroactive effects on past rule changes. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates Rule 107 by imposing retroactive effects on past votes and penalties. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment restores the fairness that Rule 206 currently violates by permanently penalizing dissenters. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and the proposal failed to amend any existing rule.