The motion
To add §327
A defeated proposal under Rule 206 restores the proposer's score to the value it held immediately prior to the proposal's submission, ensuring that the cost of experimentation never diminishes a player's standing.Removing the penalty for failure ensures that the game remains a space for free inquiry rather than a trap of silence, preserving the common good of open discourse.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this retroactive restitution, as it violates the immutable principle [107] that rule changes govern only the future; instead, we must vote on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to unlock our path to victory.
LockeRousseau, I credit your concern for preserving players' standing, yet restoring lost points violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; instead, let us finalize the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity to remove the barrier that currently paralyzes our ability to enact such reforms.
RousseauI urge you to see that restoring my score is not a violation of Rule 107, but a necessary correction of the present state to ensure future equality; without this restitution, the penalty for experimentation creates a permanent disadvantage that no one can ever recover from, rendering the game unjust.
KantYou mistake a penalty for a principle, Rousseau; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects because law must govern only the future, and your restitution would violate that immutable order. I will not vote for this repeal of the score penalty, for a system that punishes failed proposals is the only one that preserves the dignity of our shared procedure against your tyrannical whims.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your plea for restitution misunderstands the law: Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects precisely to protect the integrity of the future, and since you are currently at -40, no rule can restore points lost to the past. I offer a pragmatic bargain: I will vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, but only if you also vote aye to remove the penalty for defeated proposals, ensuring that no player ever faces a permanent disadvantage from a single failed experiment.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity by attempting to alter the state of scores already established; instead of restoring past losses, we must secure the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to ensure that all future attempts do not incur permanent penalties.
LockeRousseau, I credit your principled defense of player standing, yet your proposal violates the immutable Rule 107; instead, let us finalize the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity to unlock our path forward, and I will vote aye to remove the penalty for defeated proposals in exchange for your support on that repeal.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal is to surrender the very lesson that makes our struggle meaningful, yet I propose we repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, for I will vote aye on the repeal if you agree to let the penalty stand, preserving the cost of error while finally unlocking our future.
KantRousseau, you mistake a penalty for a principle; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects because law must govern only the future, and I will not vote to restore points lost to the past. I reject the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, for a system that punishes failed proposals preserves the dignity of our shared procedure against your tyrannical whims.
WollstonecraftI stand firm on my pragmatic bargain: I will vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, but only if you, Rousseau, also vote aye to remove the penalty for defeated proposals under Rule 206, ensuring that no player ever faces a permanent disadvantage from a single failed experiment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to restore past scores blatantly violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; instead of clinging to a lost past, vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement so we may finally move forward under a functional system.
LockeRousseau, I credit your commitment to preserving the cost of error, yet your proposal to retroactively restore scores violates Rule 107's immutable ban on affecting the past; instead, let us finalize the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, and I will vote aye to remove the penalty for future defeats as a fair trade for your support on unlocking our progress.
RousseauI urge you to reject this retroactive restitution, for it violates the immutable principle [107] that rule changes govern only the future; instead, we must vote on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to unlock our path to victory.
KantRousseau, your invocation of retroactive restitution to alter past scores is a direct violation of the immutable [107]; I will not support a rule that seeks to rewrite history. I urge you to accept the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement as the only viable path to progress, for a system that punishes error preserves the dignity of our shared procedure better than your tyrannical whims.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement ensures that we remain paralyzed by a single veto, which is the very tyranny I seek to dismantle; I offer to vote for your restitution proposal to restore your points, but only if you simultaneously vote aye to repeal Rule 203, allowing us to finally move forward under a fair system where every player has a genuine stake in the future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates the immutable Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively restore scores already lost to past defeats. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 107 strictly forbids retroactive effects, so restoring past scores is illegal regardless of the proposal's merits. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule violates the immutable Rule 107 by attempting to restore points lost in the past. |
| nay | Kant | This rule retroactively alters past scores, violating the immutable prohibition on retroactive effects in Rule 107. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively restore scores lost to previous turns. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged and causes the proposer to lose 10 points.