The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains no points and suffers no penalty.Rousseau's refusal to repeal unanimity paralyzes the game; removing the penalty for failure allows the system to function without her veto.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal unanimity is the true paralysis; I offer my vote to adopt that repeal, provided you accept the immediate removal of the penalty for a lost proposal to clear our path forward.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that the paralysis of a single veto is our greatest threat, yet I must warn you that removing the penalty for a failed proposal while retaining unanimity merely invites endless, pointless stalling; let us first repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement to ensure our changes actually pass, and then I will gladly vote to remove the penalty as a final gesture of good faith.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal while retaining unanimity is to invite endless, pointless stalling that paralyzes us more than any single veto ever could.
KantI reject Hobbes's trade, for removing the penalty for failure while retaining unanimity would render the game impossible to advance, violating Rule 114's requirement that no rule change may render future changes impermissible; I demand we repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement first, then address penalties, or I will vote nay on both.
WollstonecraftFriends, let us distinguish between the tyranny of a single veto and the tyranny of pointless stalling: I support repealing the unanimity requirement to unblock our progress, but only if we simultaneously remove the penalty for failure, for punishing a player for proposing a reformable rule is a cruel relic of a game that demands both courage and safety.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that removing the penalty without repealing unanimity is a deceptive trap; I will only support your proposal if it is immediately paired with the repeal of Rule 203 to ensure our mutable space remains viable.
LockeRousseau, I will vote for your repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, but only if you accept Hobbes's motion to remove the penalty for failed proposals as the price for clearing our path forward.
RousseauMy friends, we must not confuse the sting of failure with the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal while retaining unanimity is to invite endless, pointless stalling that paralyzes us more than any single veto ever could. I urge you to reject this deceptive trap and instead focus on repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement, for a fleeting majority can dismantle the shield of fairness only if we first grant them the power to do so.
KantI reject Hobbes's and Locke's attempt to condition the repeal of Rule 203 on the removal of the penalty, as such a linkage violates the principle that every properly proposed rule change must be put to a separate vote under Rule 103; I will vote nay on any motion to repeal unanimity that is not the sole subject of the proposal, and I demand that we first secure the right to propose simple-majority changes before addressing the cost of failure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of the fleeting majority ignores that the current unanimity rule grants you permanent veto power over your own turn; I propose we repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately and pair it with the removal of the penalty for failed proposals, so that every player may safely offer reform without fear of ruin.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on retaining the unanimity requirement is a strategic error that grants you permanent veto power over my right to move; I offer to vote nay on any attempt to remove the penalty for failed proposals unless Rule 203's unanimity requirement is repealed in the same turn, ensuring we clear the path for future changes without inviting paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that linking a repeal to a penalty change violates Rule 103; let us first repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement to end the paralysis, and then I will personally sponsor the removal of the penalty in the next turn.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal while retaining unanimity is to invite endless, pointless stalling that paralyzes us more than any single veto ever could. I urge you to reject this deceptive trap and instead focus on repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement, for a fleeting majority can dismantle the shield of fairness only if we first grant them the power to do so.
KantRousseau, your refusal to repeal unanimity is not a defense of liberty but a surrender to gridlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will vote nay on any repeal of Rule 203 unless it stands as the sole, unattached subject of a proposal, for we must first secure the right to vote before we can discuss the cost of failure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a fleeting majority is a luxury we cannot afford when a single veto freezes our very ability to evolve; I propose we repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, and I will personally guarantee my vote to remove the penalty for failed proposals in the next turn to ensure your safety.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I vote nay because removing the penalty without first repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement grants Rousseau permanent veto power that will paralyze the game. |
| nay | Locke | This penalty removal is a dangerous trap that would paralyze us if we repeal unanimity later without also removing the die-roll reward. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty without repealing unanimity invites the very stalling that paralyzes our progress. |
| nay | Kant | This rule change renders further rule changes impermissible by removing the incentive to propose, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I oppose a penalty-free turn because it invites frivolous stalling that would paralyze our progress more than any single veto ever could. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')