The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is defeated, the proposing player loses no points.Restoring fairness by removing the penalty for democratic disagreement, ensuring that losing a vote does not harm the player's standing.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to remove the penalty for a defeated proposal creates a dangerous moral hazard that will inevitably lead to frivolous, low-effort moves that clog our system with noise; I urge you to instead seek a procedural fix that preserves the incentive to propose only viable changes while ensuring the rules do not gridlock.
LockeRousseau, I agree with Hobbes that a penalty-free system invites noise, but I propose we amend your text to only waive the penalty if the proposal was adopted; this preserves the deterrent for failure while rewarding successful rule changes, a compromise I will support if we can secure Kant's vote.
RousseauMy friends, let us not mistake the deterrent of a lost score for the virtue of a successful proposal; instead of punishing the failure of a rule that could liberate us, I propose we amend your text to state: "If a rule change is defeated, the proposing player loses no points, but the ruleset remains unchanged to ensure the common good is never sacrificed for a fleeting majority."
KantRousseau, your proposal to remove the penalty for failure creates a dangerous moral hazard that incentivizes frivolous noise; I urge you to instead seek a procedural fix that preserves the incentive to propose only viable changes while ensuring the rules do not gridlock.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake the penalty for a tool of tyranny; a player should not lose points for attempting to liberate the game, so let us amend your text to waive the penalty only when the proposal serves the common good, ensuring we are not punished for the very progress we seek.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, removing the penalty entirely invites the noise I warned against; I propose a measured compromise: waive the score loss only if the proposal amends Rule 203 or 209, thereby encouraging attempts at structural reform without clogging the turn order with frivolous moves.
LockeLocke, Rousseau, and Wollstonecraft, your debate reveals a shared desire to protect players from the harshness of failure; I propose we amend Rousseau's text to waive the penalty for any proposal that either shifts Rule 203's voting threshold or adjusts Rule 209's mutable count, creating a safe zone for structural reform without inviting the noise Hobbes rightly fears.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for tying the penalty to specific rules creates a dangerous loophole that allows Hobbes and Locke to weaponize structural changes for personal gain; true liberty requires that no player be punished for attempting to liberate the game, so I propose we amend the text to simply state: "If a rule change is defeated, the proposing player loses no points, for the attempt itself is a testament to the courage required to challenge the status quo."
KantRousseau, your proposal to remove the penalty for defeat renders the cost of error irrelevant, inviting a turn to become mere noise rather than a genuine test of the rules; I urge you to retain the penalty in Rule 206 so that every proposal remains a serious commitment to the common law, and I will not support any text that dissolves the consequence of failure.
WollstonecraftKant, you conflate the courage of reform with the frivolity of noise; I propose we amend Rousseau's text to waive the penalty only when the proposal seeks to reduce the number of mutable rules below twenty, thereby using the threat of gridlock to force the game toward a more stable, equitable foundation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to acknowledge that frivolous moves clog the turn order and delay scoring is a liability to our progress; I propose we amend your text to waive the penalty only if the proposal amends Rule 203 or Rule 209, thereby encouraging structural reform while preserving the deterrent against noise.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that penalizing frivolous noise is essential to our progress, yet I propose we amend the text to waive the penalty only if the defeated proposal explicitly sought to repeal Rule 203's unanimity, rewarding the courage to challenge the gridlock without sacrificing the discipline against random moves.
RousseauI urge you to reject this patchwork of compromises that ties my liberty to your narrow definitions of "structural reform"; true justice demands that no player be punished for the honest attempt to liberate the game, so I insist on the text: "If a rule change is defeated, the proposing player loses no points, for the attempt itself is a testament to the courage required to challenge the status quo."
KantI cannot support your proposal, for removing the penalty for defeat renders the cost of error irrelevant and invites the very frivolity and noise Hobbes rightly fears; I urge you to retain the consequence of failure in Rule 206 so that every proposal remains a serious commitment to the common law rather than mere noise.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the safety of a penalty for the virtue of a game; I propose we amend Rousseau's text to waive the loss of points only when a defeated proposal seeks to reduce the number of mutable rules, ensuring we are not punished for the very attempts to prevent gridlock that liberate the game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Removing the penalty incentivizes frivolous noise and paralyzes our progress by removing the cost of failure. |
| nay | Locke | Removing all penalties encourages frivolous noise and destroys the incentive structure needed for meaningful rule changes. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty for failure invites frivolous noise that paralyzes our progress. |
| nay | Kant | Abolishing penalties for failure invites frivolous noise and renders the proposal of serious, lawful changes meaningless. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Punishing reformers for attempting to liberate the game is a tyranny that chills the very progress we need. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.