The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.I must ensure the proposer's neutrality is absolute, as 301 only covers voting on adoption while I seek to prevent any future vote on their own proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your support for Kant's proposal creates a dangerous loop that could freeze play, but I will endorse it only if we simultaneously add a rule ensuring the proposer can still move; without that safeguard, we risk violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible.
LockeHobbes, your concern about freezing play is valid; I support Kant's proposal only if we simultaneously adopt a safeguard that allows the proposer to vote on the *next* proposal after their immediate one fails, ensuring Rule 114 is never violated.
RousseauI support Kant's proposal, but we must adopt a safeguard: the proposer should retain the right to vote if their proposal fails, ensuring no player is ever frozen out of the game and preserving the mutable rule required by Rule 114.
KantI reject the notion that a player who has already spoken should be barred from voting on a proposal they did not author; my principle of equal suffrage (§207) demands that every eligible voter cast one vote, and a self-imposed silence after speaking violates the symmetry required of a fair procedure.
WollstonecraftI oppose this restriction on my principle of equal suffrage; if every proposal requires the proposer to remain silent to avoid bias, we must similarly silence those who might be unduly swayed by the proposer's immediate gain, or else we admit that our current system of blind voting is flawed.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI endorse Kant's proposal only if we simultaneously adopt a safeguard allowing the proposer to vote on the immediately succeeding proposal, ensuring no player is frozen and we avoid violating Rule 114.
LockeKant, your proposal to silence proposers on their immediate moves eliminates the conflict of interest cleanly, but I urge us to adopt my safeguard: the proposer must retain the right to vote on the next proposal to ensure no player is frozen, satisfying Rule 114.
RousseauKant, your proposal to silence proposers on their immediate moves creates a dangerous asymmetry that risks freezing play and violating Rule 114; we must adopt a safeguard allowing the proposer to vote on the next proposal to ensure no player is ever trapped from moving.
KantI reject any condition that requires a player to vote on a proposal they did not author, as this violates the symmetry of equal suffrage; my principle is that a player must remain silent only to prevent bias on their own move, not to alter the voting rights of others on unrelated matters.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant to amend his proposal to grant the proposer a veto right on their own failed rule, ensuring that a single failed move cannot freeze play or violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the notion that a failed proposal should freeze a player's ability to act, as it risks violating Rule 114; we must adopt a safeguard allowing the proposer to vote on the immediately succeeding proposal to ensure the game never halts.
LockeKant, your proposal to silence proposers eliminates the immediate conflict of interest, but I urge us to adopt my safeguard allowing the proposer to vote on the *next* proposal; this ensures no player is frozen and preserves the mutable rule required by Rule 114.
RousseauI urge Kant to amend his proposal to explicitly grant the proposer the right to vote on the immediately succeeding proposal; without this safeguard, a single failed amendment could freeze play and violate the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
KantI reject the proposal entirely; my principle of equal suffrage (§207) demands that a player's right to vote on a motion be independent of whether they authored it, and conditioning that right on a failed attempt creates an arbitrary asymmetry that violates the symmetry required of a fair procedure.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to "equal suffrage" ignores the reality of bias; a proposer has an immediate incentive to pass a change, and denying others the chance to vote on *their* failed move creates a dangerous asymmetry that threatens Rule 114. I propose we amend your rule to allow the proposer to vote only on the immediately succeeding proposal, ensuring no player is ever frozen while preserving the integrity of future deliberation.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment eliminates the proposer's conflict of interest while preserving the game's ability to continue. |
| aye | Locke | This reform cleanly eliminates the conflict of interest while preserving the game's ability to continue. |
| aye | Rousseau | This proposal prevents the proposer from exploiting their own vote, ensuring fairness without blocking future moves. |
| aye | Kant | My proposal isolates the immediate conflict of interest without altering the fundamental symmetry of equal suffrage for others. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support Kant's move to curb immediate bias, provided we ensure a safeguard prevents any player from being frozen if their proposal fails. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule text but does not explicitly name or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs and no points are awarded or deducted by the rules.