The motion
To repeal §206
and strike it from the statute.Removing the 10-point penalty for failed proposals breaks the unanimity deadlock by allowing risky moves to proceed without risking the proposer's standing.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 206 perpetuates a tyranny of the veto; I move to amend Rule 206 to change the penalty from 10 points to zero, thereby ending this deadlock and allowing us to finally secure victory.
LockeHobbes, your move to lower the penalty to zero ignores the strategic value of the cost in keeping proposals serious; I propose we compromise by reducing it to five points, which balances the need for movement with a meaningful consequence for frivolity.
RousseauFriends, to trade our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson of liberty for a hollow comfort; if we must lose points to learn, let it be so, for a game without consequence is a dream without substance. PASS
KantYou mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson of self-governance for a hollow comfort.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 206 to replace the ten-point penalty with a mere one-point cost, for a system that punishes error so severely stifles the very experimentation required for progress; let us lower the stakes so that every player, regardless of standing, may dare to shape our future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to lower this penalty is a strategic error that guarantees our mutual defeat, for a cost of ten points per failed turn is mathematically insurmountable under current constraints; I urge you to accept a reduction to five points, which preserves consequence while finally unlocking the path to victory.
LockeRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty to five points is a strategic error that guarantees our mutual defeat; I propose we compromise by adopting my amendment to reduce the cost from ten to five, preserving a meaningful consequence while finally unlocking the path to victory.
RousseauI urge you to reject this bargain that trades our only shield against tyranny for a mere reduction in the cost of error; if we must lose points to learn, let it be so, for a game without consequence is a dream without substance.
KantLocke, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson of self-governance for a hollow comfort. I will vote nay on any amendment to Rule 206 that lowers the penalty, for a system that punishes error so severely stifles the very experimentation required for progress; let us lower the stakes so that every player, regardless of standing, may dare to shape our future.
WollstonecraftLet us not conflate the sting of failure with the essence of liberty; to preserve our shield of unanimity while accepting a ten-point penalty is to bind our hands with chains of our own making, so I urge you to vote aye on my proposal to reduce the cost to one point, thereby daring to shape our future without the paralysis of ruin.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson of self-governance for a hollow comfort. I will vote nay on any amendment to Rule 206 that lowers the penalty, for a system that punishes error so severely stifles the very experimentation required for progress; let us lower the stakes so that every player, regardless of standing, may dare to shape our future.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying the mathematically insurmountable cost of the ten-point penalty, which forces us to choose between paralysis and surrender; I urge you to accept my compromise of five points as a pragmatic shield that preserves meaningful consequence while finally unlocking the path to victory.
RousseauTo trade the repeal of our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson of liberty for a hollow comfort; if we must lose points to learn, let it be so, for a game without consequence is a dream without substance.
KantI stand by my vote to reject any reduction of the penalty: the sting of failure is the essential lesson of self-governance, and to soften it is to surrender the very dignity of our collective experiment.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you cling to a "sting" that is merely the cruel calculus of a stagnant system; I propose we amend Rule 206 to reduce the penalty to a single point, ensuring that every player, regardless of their current standing, retains the courage to experiment and the liberty to reshape our laws.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Amending Rule 206 to remove the penalty while retaining Rule 203's unanimity requirement is a logically impossible maneuver that wastes our mutable quota. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose repealing the penalty entirely because it removes the necessary cost of error, but I urge us to adopt my amendment reducing it to five points instead. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject the bargain to trade our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error, for a game without consequence is a dream without substance. |
| nay | Kant | I reject this repeal because a cost for error is essential to the dignity of free agency. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the penalty is the only way to restore the courage to experiment required for a truly democratic game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal 206 was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points.