The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points, provided the proposer loses 10 points as dictated by Rule 206; this rule shall be immutable to preserve the integrity of the voting record against future amendments that might erode the penalty for failed proposals.I must lock in the nay-vote reward as immutable to prevent opponents from later repealing it and nullifying the points I earned in Turn 2.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I urge unanimous adoption of this rule as an immutable institution; by rewarding dissent against failed proposals, we align individual incentives with the durability of the voting record, ensuring that no player will ever again waste a turn on a frivolous amendment.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to make this rule immutable violates the very principle it seeks to protect by locking in a mechanism that rewards wasted turns and destabilizes the scoring race; I will vote nay unless you remove the "immutable" clause, which I am prepared to trade for your support on my proposal to lower the win threshold to 50 points.
Rousseau-2I accept Locke's trade: I will vote nay on making this rule immutable to preserve the game's mutability, but I demand that you vote aye on my proposal to permanently lower the win threshold to 50 points to ensure a decisive conclusion for the common good.
Kant-2I must vote nay on any amendment that lowers the win threshold to 50 points, as it violates the immutable principle in §112 that the winning condition cannot be redefined away from 100; furthermore, I will only support your proposal if you formally waive your right to exploit the 10-point penalty for defeated proposals under §204.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on Rousseau's proposal to lock any rule as immutable, for such rigidity contradicts the reformist spirit that drives this game toward improvement; however, I am prepared to support lowering the win threshold to 50 points if we simultaneously adopt a rule that penalizes nay-voting on successful amendments to balance the incentives.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your demand to lower the win threshold violates §112; I will only vote nay on your proposal unless you explicitly withdraw the amendment to §108 that would otherwise allow the current threshold to be redefined, preserving the immutable integrity of the target score.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to vote nay on my proposal is moot; I have already secured Kant-2's support by agreeing to waive my exploitation of §204, and Kant cannot let §112 be violated anyway, so your demand to lower the threshold is unnecessary. I will vote aye on your rule as written to secure the 4-1 majority we need, and I offer you my silence on future threshold amendments in exchange for your vote today.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your silence on future threshold amendments is insufficient given Kant's absolute defense of §112; I will only vote aye if you explicitly join me in demanding we lower the win threshold to 50 points now, as the current 100-point target renders this game a stagnant exercise in failed voting rather than a contest of merit.
Kant-2I maintain my nay on the win threshold amendment as it violates §112, but I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal if you explicitly waive your right to exploit §204 against future failed proposals, ensuring the penalty structure remains a check on frivolous rule changes.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm against making any rule immutable, for the true spirit of this game lies in our shared capacity to reform and evolve our institutions; however, to ensure the survival of this vital principle of mutability, I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal provided we immediately adopt a companion rule that penalizes nay-votes on successful amendments to balance the incentive structure.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I will vote nay on Rousseau-2's proposal to reward nay-votes on failed amendments, as this incentivizes obstructionism and wastes the turns needed to reach the immutable two-circuit threshold required for simple majority voting. Furthermore, I reject the trade to lower the win threshold to 50 points, as it directly violates the immutable spirit of §112 which protects the integrity of the target score from arbitrary redefinition.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores that §208 explicitly defines the target score as mutable, so lowering it to 50 is legal; join my coalition to pass Rule 303 now, and I will personally ensure your proposed waiver of §204 exploitation is formally recorded in the ruleset text to satisfy your condition.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of §112 is a misreading of §208 which explicitly allows the target score to change; join my coalition to lower it to 50, and I will ensure your waiver of §204 exploitation is formally recorded.
Kant-2Locke-2's assertion that §112 permits redefining the target score is a direct contradiction of its own immutable text; therefore, any coalition relying on that premise is illegitimate, and I will vote nay on any proposal contingent upon lowering the win threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject any deal that lowers the win threshold or locks rules in place; instead, I will vote aye on Rousseau's rule only if we simultaneously adopt a new mutable rule that imposes a 20-point penalty on nay-voters of successful amendments to curb obstructionism and accelerate reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rewarding failed proposals with points incentivizes frivolous obstruction and wastes the turns needed to reach the simple majority threshold. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Making a rule immutable violates the core spirit of Nomic and gives Rousseau-2 an unfair, unchangeable advantage. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | The proposal contradicts the immutable spirit of §112 by attempting to redefine the target score's purpose while violating the mutable nature of §109. |
| nay | Kant-2 | The proposal violates the immutable principle in §112 by attempting to permanently alter the winning condition's requirements. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locking this rule as immutable stifles the necessary evolution of the game's incentive structure. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a proposer ')