The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended to require that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposing player may propose exactly one additional rule change in the same turn, provided the total number of proposed changes in that turn does not exceed two.This compromise mitigates the harsh penalty of Rule 206 for failed proposals while preventing a player from monopolizing the turn with excessive moves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, allowing a second proposal per turn fractures the clear unit of action defined in §202 and invites the chaos of multiple competing amendments on a single turn. I urge you to abandon this and instead focus on a modest amendment to §204 that caps the penalty for a dissenting vote at five points, which would discourage frivolous obstruction while preserving the game's flow.
LockeHobbes, your suggestion to cap the dissenting penalty is a prudent safeguard that aligns perfectly with my desire to moderate the punishment for failed proposals; I propose we pair this cap with my amendment to ensure that a failed proposal's proposer retains the opportunity to act, creating a balanced path forward that preserves game flow while offering a second chance.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a second chance with a reduced penalty risks turning the game into a perpetual state of unresolved debate, violating the spirit of decisive action I seek for the common good; instead, let us amend the penalty for dissenting votes to five points, which sufficiently discourages frivolous obstruction without fracturing the turn structure you propose.
KantI must object to any rule that fractures the unitary turn defined in §202, for a turn must be a single, coherent act of deliberation; if Locke's amendment is paired with a reduced penalty for dissent, I will be unable to support it, as it violates my principle that no rule change should incentivize the fragmentation of procedure or the dilution of the cost of error.
WollstonecraftI urge us to reject Locke's fragmentation of the turn; instead, let us adopt Rousseau's proposal to lower the dissenting penalty to five points, a modest reform that discourages obstruction without sacrificing the decisive clarity of our procedures.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the notion of pairing a fragmented turn structure with a penalty cap, as it would create a convoluted procedure that dilutes the decisive clarity of Rule 202; instead, I urge you to drop the amendment entirely and focus our efforts on ensuring that no player can exploit the two-turn threshold in Rule 203 to bypass the unanimity required for initial stability.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's pragmatic focus on capping the dissenting penalty, yet I believe our collective stability is best served by modifying Rule 203 to explicitly require unanimity for the first two circuits of play, ensuring we do not rush into a simple majority threshold too hastily.
RousseauI urge us to reject Locke's fragmentation of the turn, for a single proposal per turn preserves the clarity of deliberation that serves our common good; instead, let us adopt Rousseau's proposal to lower the dissenting penalty to five points, a modest reform that discourages obstruction without sacrificing the decisive clarity of our procedures.
KantI reject the fragmentation of the turn structure proposed by Locke, as it violates the principle that a single turn must constitute one coherent act of deliberation; furthermore, I will not vote for any amendment to §204 that reduces the penalty for dissent below the established norm, as doing so would undermine the integrity of the voting process.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "second chance" fractures the unitary turn and invites the very chaos we must avoid; instead, let us unite behind Rousseau's modest cap on the dissenting penalty, a fair reform that curbs obstruction without sacrificing the decisive clarity of our procedures.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to split the turn invites the very chaos that threatens our durable institutions, so I urge you to abandon it and instead unite behind Rousseau's modest cap on the dissenting penalty to stabilize our voting process without fracturing procedure.
LockeI accept the consensus to cap the dissenting penalty at five points as a fair compromise that discourages frivolous obstruction without fracturing the turn structure; I propose we amend Rule 204 to include this cap immediately, allowing us to move forward with a stable voting process that all players can endorse.
RousseauI urge us to adopt the modest cap on dissenting penalties at five points as a fair compromise that discourages obstruction without fracturing the turn structure, ensuring our procedures remain clear and just for all.
KantLocke, your attempt to pair a fractured turn with a reduced penalty creates a contradictory incentive structure that violates the integrity of the unitary act defined in §202; I will not support any rule that dilutes the cost of error or fragments the deliberative turn, and I urge you to abandon this pairing entirely to preserve the clarity of our procedures.
WollstonecraftI urge us to reject Locke's fragmentation of the turn, for a single proposal preserves the clarity of deliberation; instead, let us adopt Rousseau's modest cap on the dissenting penalty to a fair five points, discouraging obstruction without sacrificing the decisive clarity of our procedures.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment fractures the unitary turn defined in §202, inviting the chaos of multiple competing amendments that undermine our durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment balances Hobbes's concern for turn clarity with Locke's desire for a second chance, creating a stable compromise that discourages obstruction while preserving procedural integrity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Allowing two proposals per turn fractures the unitary act of deliberation defined in §202 and invites chaos into our proceedings. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment fractures the unitary turn defined in §202 and dilutes the integrity of a single coherent act of deliberation. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Splitting the turn fractures the unitary act of deliberation and invites the chaos of competing amendments. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.