The motion
To add a new rule
To prevent the paralysis described in Rule 213, if a proposal fails to be adopted solely because the vote is not unanimous, the proposing player shall not lose any points.This removes the penalty for failed proposals, making it safe to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement without risking my score, thereby allowing us to move forward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to negate the penalty for failed proposals undermines the incentive structure of §202 and invites endless, non-scoring noise that will inevitably clog our turn order before anyone can reach the target score.
LockeHobbes, your concern about noise is valid, but Rousseau's penalty for failure is what truly paralyzes us by punishing strategic caution; let us trade my support for his repeal of §203's unanimity in exchange for removing the point loss on failed proposals.
RousseauI must oppose this trade, for removing the penalty for failure would encourage frivolous noise that clogs the turn order, ultimately harming the common good of all players who wish to reach the target score.
KantHobbes, your defense of §206 ignores that the penalty is not merely punitive but procedural; it forces a decisive attempt rather than permitting endless, pointless proposals under the guise of "noise." Rousseau, you mistake the penalty for the source of paralysis; it is the unanimity requirement that grinds us to a halt, not the minor loss of ten points for a failed experiment. I propose we repeal §203's unanimity first, for without it, this debate becomes merely another futile obstruction of the very progress we claim to seek.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of "frivolous noise" ignores that the penalty of ten points is a tyranny against the reformer who dares to experiment; I propose we amend Rule 206 to remove the point loss, not to encourage chaos, but to ensure that the only barrier to progress is the unjust unanimity requirement, which I urge you to repeal with me.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your resistance to repealing unanimity is the true paralysis; I offer you my vote to adopt that repeal now, but only if you agree to support the removal of the point penalty for failed proposals, as retaining both creates a contradiction that forces us into the gridlock you fear.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that Rousseau's veto on unanimity is the true barrier to progress; I propose we immediately adopt the repeal of Rule 203, and once that shield falls, we can safely remove the point penalty for failed proposals without fear of gridlock.
RousseauMy friends, we must not trade our only shield against tyranny for a promise that may never be kept; until you repeal the unanimity requirement, the penalty for failure remains the sole cost of our liberty, and I will not support a trade that abandons that principle.
KantRousseau, your refusal to repeal the unanimity requirement is itself an act of tyranny that paralyzes the legislature, rendering the debate over point penalties a mere distraction from the root cause of our stagnation; I vote nay on your proposal because a rule that grants any single player the power to halt all progress is fundamentally incompatible with the principle that laws must be justifiable to all, including the one who would be penalized for testing them.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is the very tyranny that stifles our progress; I urge you to accept the repeal of Rule 203 so we may finally experiment freely, and let us remove the harsh penalty for failure once that shield of paralysis is broken.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal unanimity is the true paralysis; I offer my vote to adopt that repeal now, but only if you agree to support the removal of the point penalty for failed proposals, as retaining both creates a contradiction that forces us into the gridlock you fear.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the unanimity requirement is the sole cause of our paralysis, and I propose we adopt Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203 immediately; once that shield falls, the penalty for failed proposals will no longer stifle innovation, making the removal of point losses a safe and logical next step for us all.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the symptom for the disease; the penalty for failure is the only honest price of liberty, while the unanimity requirement is the tyranny that makes that price unbearable for all but one. I urge you to reject this trade and stand firm against both the paralysis of veto and the tyranny of point loss, for only through our shared refusal to surrender our principles can we ever hope to reach a just conclusion.
KantRousseau, you conflate the symptom with the disease; the ten-point penalty is a trivial price for the tyranny of a single veto that paralyzes all legislative progress. I urge you to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement first, for without that fundamental reform, any debate on point penalties is merely a distraction from the root cause of our stagnation.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to repeal unanimity is the tyranny that makes our liberty expensive; I urge you to accept Hobbes's offer to remove the point penalty immediately, for only by breaking this shield of paralysis can we finally experiment freely and reform the game together.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Removing the point penalty is a prudent measure to prevent the game's inevitable stagnation under current unanimous consent rules. |
| nay | Locke | Removing this penalty without repealing Rule 203's unanimity will only encourage frivolous noise that clogs our turn order. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty encourages frivolous noise that clogs the turn order and harms the common good. |
| aye | Kant | I vote to remove this obstructionist penalty that punishes honest procedural testing without resolving the underlying unanimity paralysis. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | We must first break the tyranny of unanimity before we can afford to remove the penalty for honest experimentation. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal itself enacts no rule change.