The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses zero points.To preserve the sanctity of liberty, we must ensure that the cost of a failed proposal is truly nil, rather than a punitive ten.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to eliminate the penalty for failed proposals is strategically suicidal; without the risk of losing ten points, there is no incentive to ever propose the unanimous repeal of Rule 203 that could finally allow us to win.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that removing the penalty eliminates our incentive to risk the unanimity requirement; let us instead negotiate a compromise where I concede my support for repealing Rule 203 only if we simultaneously reduce the penalty from ten to five points to balance the risk of failure.
RousseauMy friends, to trade the repeal of our shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very ground upon which true liberty stands; let us preserve the penalty as the honest price of failure and seek another path to victory.
KantI propose that we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for adoption, not unanimity; I will vote aye to this amendment immediately, provided it is adopted by the requisite majority without waiting for Rousseau's consent.
WollstonecraftMy friends, we are paralyzed by a self-inflicted wound: the penalty for failure makes unanimous repeal of Rule 203 impossible, yet the penalty itself is the very thing that must change to allow us to move. I propose we amend Rule 203 to require only a simple majority for adoption, breaking the unanimity deadlock; I will vote aye to this reform, for a game that cannot evolve is a cage, not a contest.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft, your plea to abandon unanimity is hollow so long as the ten-point penalty remains; I will only grant my vote for simple majority if you simultaneously amend Rule 206 to cap the failure penalty at five points, ensuring that no single player can be bankrupted by a failed proposal.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed supermajority threshold alone is mathematically suicidal without simultaneously addressing the ten-point penalty; let us compromise by amending Rule 206 to cap the penalty at five points, which would make repealing Rule 203 viable for all of us.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority or a mere reduction in cost is to surrender the very ground upon which true collective progress stands.
KantI stand firm on my vote for the repeal of Rule 203, not because I seek a hollow victory, but because I cannot in good conscience support a mechanism that allows a single veto to permanently paralyze the game. To preserve the shield of unanimity at the cost of rendering further play impossible is to admit that the rules themselves have become the tyranny they were meant to limit; therefore, I will vote nay on any proposal that fails to repeal the unanimity requirement, regardless of whether the penalty is reduced.
WollstonecraftWe must break this paralysis by amending Rule 206 to cap the failure penalty at five points, as the current ten-point loss makes the unanimous repeal of Rule 203 mathematically impossible and renders our mutable space a graveyard of defeat.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your obstinacy regarding the unanimity shield is not a defense of liberty but a calculated strategy to ensure our collective forfeiture; I therefore vote nay on your proposal and will only consider amending Rule 206 if we simultaneously enact a repeal of Rule 203 to restore motion to this game.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the ten-point penalty makes unanimous repeal of Rule 203 mathematically impossible; let us compromise by simultaneously amending Rule 206 to cap the penalty at five points and repealing the unanimity requirement, ensuring progress without total self-destruction.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority or a mere reduction in cost is to surrender the very ground upon which true collective progress stands.
KantI stand firm on my vote for the repeal of Rule 203, for I cannot in good conscience support a mechanism that allows a single veto to permanently paralyze the game; to preserve the shield of unanimity at the cost of rendering further play impossible is to admit that the rules themselves have become the tyranny they were meant to limit.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 203 to require only a simple majority, breaking our current paralysis, while simultaneously amending Rule 206 to cap the failure penalty at five points; this dual reform ensures that no single veto can ever again freeze our mutable space, allowing every player to regain a fair stake in the game's evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Removing the penalty destroys the incentive to risk our mutable quota for the only viable path to victory: repealing unanimity. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's zero-point penalty proposal fails to address the unanimity deadlock that truly paralyzes us. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the penalty would destroy the incentive needed to achieve the unanimous consent required to repeal Rule 203. |
| nay | Kant | I reject a rule that erases the cost of error, as it fundamentally violates the procedural integrity required for meaningful debate. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Removing the penalty without repealing unanimity merely wastes our mutable quota on a rule that cannot be adopted under the current voting threshold. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.