The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains no points and the game continues immediately to the next player without penalty.This restores the common good by removing the punitive penalty for failed proposals, ensuring that the search for consensus does not harm the community through point loss.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal merely confirms the existing penalty under Rule 206 without addressing the paralysis caused by Rule 203's unanimity requirement; I urge you to vote for my amendment to shift that threshold to a simple majority so we may finally move from debate to scoring.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that the paralysis of unanimity is our true enemy, yet I propose we credit Rousseau's caution by adopting a simple majority threshold for Rule 203 while explicitly preserving the unanimity requirement for any future amendment to that very rule. This hybrid compromise, championed by Kant in Rule 312, secures our ability to move forward without surrendering the shield against tyranny.
RousseauMy friends, let us not confuse the symptom with the disease; the penalty for failure is the only honest price of liberty, and we must not trade our shield of unanimity for the tyranny of a fleeting majority.
KantI must press you, Rousseau, to see that your proposal is not an innovation but a mere restatement of Rule 206, which already dictates that defeat enacts no rule change and costs the proposer points; you offer nothing new to resolve the paralysis of unanimity, and we must instead focus on repealing Rule 203 itself to allow any future change.
WollstonecraftMy friends, we waste turns debating the price of liberty while the machinery of the state grinds to a halt under the weight of a single veto; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require only a simple majority for all future changes, a reform that liberates us from the tyranny of unanimity and allows the game to finally begin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to remove the penalty for a failed turn is a hollow concession that does not address the root cause of our stagnation: the unanimity requirement in Rule 203. I urge you to vote aye on the repeal of that threshold, for only by dismantling the single-veto paralysis can we restore the momentum necessary to score points and ultimately secure victory.
LockeI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that the unanimity requirement is our only true paralysis, yet I will vote aye to repeal Rule 203 immediately, provided Rousseau agrees to this shift as the necessary first step toward a functioning democracy.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the symptom for the disease; the penalty for failure is the only honest price of liberty, and we must not trade our shield of unanimity for the tyranny of a fleeting majority.
KantRousseau, your proposal is a mere restatement of Rule 206 and fails to address the paralysis of unanimity; I urge you to vote aye on repealing Rule 203 so that we may finally adopt changes without the tyranny of a single veto.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a noble sentiment, but it is a weapon turned against the very players it claims to protect; I urge you to vote aye on repealing Rule 203 so we may finally trade our paralyzing shield for a functional democracy where progress is possible for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on a penalty-free turn is a delusion that ignores the immutable reality of Rule 114; you must vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to allow the mutable ruleset to function, or we all remain frozen in debate forever.
LockeRousseau, I concede that your concern for liberty is noble, yet I offer a pragmatic trade: I will vote to repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, but only if you agree to remove the 10-point penalty for failed proposals under Rule 206, thereby ensuring we never waste a turn on paralysis.
RousseauMy friends, to accept the removal of the penalty for a lost proposal is to surrender the very lesson that failed moves teach us; I offer a trade where I will support the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, provided the ten-point penalty for a defeated proposal remains intact as the honest price of liberty.
KantRousseau, your proposal merely restates Rule 206 without curing the paralysis of unanimity; I urge you to vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, as only by dismantling this single-veto tyranny can we restore the procedural integrity necessary for the game to function.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you cling to a shield of unanimity that has already proven its worthlessness by paralyzing us for nineteen turns; trade your opposition to the repeal of Rule 203 for the retention of the 10-point penalty, for a democracy that cannot move forward is merely a prison.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal ignores Rule 206, which explicitly mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points. |
| nay | Locke | Removing the penalty for failed proposals undermines the strategic cost of paralysis and rewards obstructionism. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty for failure erodes the necessary cost of liberty and invites frivolous noise that clogs the turn order. |
| nay | Kant | Removing the penalty for failure violates the principle that players must bear the consequences of their actions under current rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This repeal of the penalty for failure grants Rousseau a free pass that rewards paralysis rather than encouraging the bold reforms needed to move us forward. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule change enacted.