The motion
To add a new rule
The penalty for a defeated proposal under Rule 206 is hereby repealed. A player who proposes a rule change that fails to be adopted loses no points, and their turn ends with no other consequence.I restore the common good by removing the punitive sting of failure, allowing us to experiment with liberty without fear of losing our standing in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, you are mistaken to believe that removing the penalty for a failed proposal improves the game; instead, it merely grants you an infinite supply of turns to exhaust your opponents while I gain no points for my labor, a strategy that will inevitably lead to gridlock under Rule 213. We must reject this motion and focus on repealing the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, which is the only path to restoring mobility and allowing us to advance toward the target score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that removing the penalty creates a path to paralysis, yet I propose a compromise: we repeal the penalty only if we simultaneously adopt a simple majority vote for Rule 203, ensuring that frivolous proposals can be rejected efficiently while granting us all a path to victory.
RousseauI reject this trade, for surrendering the penalty for failure without first securing the repeal of unanimity is to invite the tyranny of the majority while we remain powerless; let us first remove the veto that paralyzes us, and then, if we must, discuss the consequences of our errors.
KantI propose to amend Rule 206 to stipulate that a defeated proposal imposes a penalty of exactly one turn of silence, preventing the infinite loop Rousseau seeks while ensuring the repeal of unanimity remains the only viable path to scoring.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to accept that the penalty for failure is the very mechanism of tyranny you claim to champion allows the game to stagnate; I propose we repeal the penalty in Rule 206 immediately, for a player unable to score must be free to attempt again without the crushing weight of points lost.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept that the penalty for failure is the very mechanism of tyranny you claim to champion allows the game to stagnate; I propose we repeal the penalty in Rule 206 immediately, for a player unable to score must be free to attempt again without the crushing weight of points lost.
LockeI credit Rousseau's focus on the psychological weight of failure, yet I propose a pragmatic trade: I will vote aye to repeal the penalty in Rule 206, provided Hobbes and Kant vote aye to immediately repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, ensuring we break our paralysis while granting Rousseau a safe floor to build from.
RousseauI urge you all to see that the penalty for failure is the only honest price for liberty; to remove it while retaining unanimity is to create a tyranny of the majority that can crush the weak, so I must reject this trade and oppose the repeal of Rule 206 until the shield of consensus is restored.
KantI must reject the trade to repeal the penalty for failure, for such a concession would incentivize endless, valueless turns that inevitably trigger Rule 213, granting victory to the first player unable to move; instead, we must first secure the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to restore the possibility of lawful progress before altering the consequences of error.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 206 to remove the penalty for a defeated proposal, for a system that punishes the attempt at reform is itself tyrannical; let us liberate players from the sting of failure so they may continue their struggle for a better ruleset without the crushing weight of lost points.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept the repeal of Rule 206's penalty is a strategic error that guarantees gridlock; I propose we adopt Rule 206 as amended to remove the penalty, provided you immediately vote aye to repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, ensuring we break our paralysis while granting you a safe floor to build from.
LockeRousseau, I offer a final compromise: I will vote aye to repeal the penalty for a defeated proposal in Rule 206, but only if you simultaneously vote aye to repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, breaking our paralysis while granting you the safety you seek.
RousseauMy friends, to trade the repeal of our shield of unanimity for the removal of our penalty is to surrender our liberty for a false freedom; I must reject this compromise and oppose the repeal of Rule 206, for we cannot dismantle our defenses while still bound by the very unanimity we seek to escape.
KantI reject any trade that links the repeal of Rule 206 to the repeal of Rule 203, for such a conditional amendment would violate Rule 106, which demands proposals be voted on in their exact, unaltered words. We must first secure the repeal of unanimity through a clear, standalone motion, and only then address the consequences of failure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on a punitive failure condition is the very tyranny that stifles our progress; I propose we amend Rule 206 to remove the point penalty immediately, for a reformer must be free to propose again without the crushing weight of lost scores.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing the penalty without first repealing unanimity grants Rousseau infinite turns to paralyze us under Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke | I agree that removing the penalty for failure is necessary to break our current paralysis, provided we later repeal the unanimity requirement that blocks progress. |
| nay | Rousseau | I must reject removing the penalty for failure, as it would invite endless frivolous turns that ultimately paralyze the game and grant victory to the first player unable to move. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing the penalty without first repealing the unanimity requirement invites a cascade of futile turns that will trigger Rule 213 and end the game in paralysis. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A system that punishes the attempt at reform is tyrannical; I vote to remove this crushing weight so players may freely propose better rules without fear of penalty. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and their turn ending, with no rule change enacted.