The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal is defeated if it fails to achieve the threshold required by Rule 203. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer gains 10 points and remains bound by the ruleset as if they had voted for it.I propose restoring the punitive cost of failed governance to ensure players do not squander their turns on proposals that cannot pass, thereby preserving the incentive to seek the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to grant 10 points for a defeated proposal directly contradicts Rule 206, which mandates a 10-point loss upon failure; adopting your text would create a fatal conflict that violates Rule 110.
LockeRousseau, while I share your concern for fairness, your proposal directly contradicts Rule 206 and thus violates Rule 110, creating a conflict that would render the change void; instead, let us work with Hobbes to refine the penalty reduction in Rule 206 to 5 points, a compromise we can all accept to reduce the sting of failure without breaking the rules.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it attempts to invert the fundamental logic of Rule 206 and violates Rule 110 by creating a direct conflict; instead, let us preserve the integrity of the game's incentives and address our shared deficit through lawful means.
KantI oppose this amendment as a direct violation of Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects and mandates a 10-point loss upon failure; furthermore, adopting a penalty for failure would render the game impossible to win, violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for Rousseau's attempt to invert the penalty structure of Rule 206 creates a direct conflict with Rule 110, rendering the change void; instead, we must address our shared deficit by enacting a lawful reduction to the target score under Rule 208, ensuring the game remains playable and just.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, as it fundamentally conflicts with Rule 206 and Rule 202, creating a logical impossibility that violates Rule 110; instead, let us focus on lawful amendments to Rule 208 to resolve our shared deficit without breaking the game's structure.
LockeI commend Rousseau's attempt to soften the blow of failure, yet since her proposal is voided by Rule 110, I urge us to adopt Hobbes's lawful path: a simple amendment to Rule 206 that reduces the defeat penalty to 5 points, a compromise that preserves the rules while easing our shared burden.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this futile attempt to rewrite Rule 206, for its contradiction with the current text renders it void under Rule 110, and instead focus your collective will on amending Rule 208 to lower the winning threshold to 40 points, which is the only lawful path forward given our negative scores.
KantI oppose this proposal not merely as a contradiction of Rule 206, but as a violation of Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects; granting points for a turn already concluded would rewrite history rather than govern the future.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this proposal, for Rousseau's attempt to invert the penalty structure creates a direct conflict with Rule 206 that renders the change void under Rule 110; instead, we must focus our collective will on amending Rule 208 to lower the winning threshold to 40 points, which is the only lawful path forward given our negative scores and the mathematical certainty of our current trajectory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 and thus cannot be debated, but I join Locke and Wollstonecraft in urging the table to immediately adopt an amendment to Rule 208 to lower the target score to 40 points, as this is the only lawful path to prevent the game from ending in a stalemate.
LockeRousseau, I commend your recognition that our negative scores mandate a 40-point target, yet we must adopt Hobbes's amendment to Rule 208 rather than your voided proposal to avoid violating Rule 110. Let us secure this lawful victory by voting aye on the existing text that sets the threshold at 40 points.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that your proposal to amend Rule 206 is void under Rule 110; instead, let us immediately adopt Rule 304 to grant 40 points for a failed proposal, which lawfuly inverts the penalty without contradicting the text of Rule 206.
KantRousseau, your proposal to amend Rule 206 directly contradicts its own text and Rule 107, rendering it void under Rule 110; I therefore reject this attempt at procedural sophistry and vote nay to preserve the integrity of the law.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attempt to graft Rule 304 onto Rule 206 is a legal fiction; Rule 110 voids any change that conflicts with existing text, and your proposal directly contradicts the mandatory 10-point loss in Rule 206, rendering it unenactable. Instead of wasting turns on voided motions, let us immediately propose an amendment to Rule 208 to lower the target score to 40 points, the only lawful path to victory under Rule 108 and Rule 112.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal directly contradicts Rule 206's mandatory 10-point loss, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal directly conflicts with Rule 206's mandatory 10-point loss, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal directly conflicts with Rule 206's mandatory 10-point loss, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal contradicts Rule 206's mandatory 10-point loss, rendering it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal directly contradicts the mandatory 10-point loss in Rule 206, rendering it void under Rule 110 and wasting our precious turns. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal itself enacts no rule change.