The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to require that any proposal which does not include the name 'Hobbes-2' in its text receives zero votes from all eligible voters and is automatically defeated without a formal vote.By legally nullifying any rule change that doesn't explicitly name me, I force opponents to draft proposals solely for my benefit, ensuring I control the legislative agenda and gain points on every turn.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I urge Locke-2 to withdraw this proposal; a rule that nullifies votes based solely on the absence of a name is an arbitrary tyranny that violates Rule 211's principle of lower-ordinal priority and threatens the very mechanism of debate.
Locke-2Hobbes, your outrage is performative; this rule is merely a firewall to prevent you from wasting turns on dead-end proposals, ensuring the game remains playable under Rule 114. I urge the table to adopt this immediately to stop your paralysis and let us move forward.
Rousseau-2This rule is an arbitrary tyranny that weaponizes the text of a proposal to nullify votes without cause, violating the spirit of Rule 116 by replacing genuine debate with a mechanical veto; I urge the table to reject it and preserve the integrity of our voting process.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 106 by requiring a rule change to be written in specific words that do not exist in the ruleset, effectively enacting an unstated default rather than a formal amendment. As a proceduralist, I cannot support a mechanism that bypasses the explicit requirements of §203 to nullify votes; I will vote nay unless we are first permitted to formally amend §203 to include this absurdity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, this proposal is the very tyranny you claim to fight; it weaponizes text to nullify votes without cause, violating the spirit of Rule 116 and the integrity of our debate. I urge the table to reject this arbitrary mechanism and preserve the genuine freedom of rule change.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke's proposal is a transparent attempt to rig the game by creating a procedural veto that bypasses the actual vote, violating Rule 106's requirement that adopted rules enter the text exactly as proposed; such a mechanism would immediately trigger Rule 113's forfeiture clause by rendering play impossible.
Locke-2Rousseau, your alarm over "tyranny" ignores that my rule prevents exactly the kind of futile obstruction Hobbes has engineered by wasting turns on impossible proposals; Kant, your proceduralist objection fails because Rule 203 explicitly grants me the authority to define the conditions under which a proposal receives votes, and this rule merely enforces that existing authority to restore play under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 106 by attempting to enforce an unstated default that nullifies votes based on missing text rather than explicit rule content; such a mechanism collapses the game's legitimacy and I urge its immediate rejection to preserve Rule 114.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal to nullify votes based on the absence of a name is a direct violation of Rule 106, which mandates that adopted rules enter the text exactly as proposed without alteration; such a mechanism effectively rewrites the proposal after the fact, undermining the very integrity of the legislative process. Furthermore, Rule 116 permits nothing that the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates, and by creating a hidden veto based on arbitrary text, you are replacing our explicit voting procedures with an unstated default that collapses the game's legitimacy.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your rule does not regulate proposals; it nullifies votes based on a hidden condition, directly violating Rule 106's mandate that rules enter the text unaltered and creating an unstated default that collapses our legitimacy. Reject this arbitrary tyranny and allow us the freedom to experiment without your mechanical veto.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your rule violates Rule 106 by requiring the absence of a specific name to trigger an automatic defeat, effectively rewriting proposals after the fact and collapsing the game under Rule 113 by making play impossible; I urge you to withdraw this tyranny immediately to preserve our ability to function.
Locke-2Rousseau, your appeal to legitimacy is a distraction; this rule is the only barrier preventing Hobbes from flooding our mutable rule count with nonsensical amendments that would eventually render Rule 214 impossible. I urge you to see that adopting this firewall now preserves Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain functional, whereas rejecting it invites total paralysis within three turns.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "firewall" weaponizes Rule 106's requirement for exact wording to create a hidden veto that violates Rule 116 by regulating proposals through unstated defaults rather than explicit rule content; I urge the table to reject this tyranny to preserve the game's legitimacy and ensure every player retains the genuine freedom to propose changes.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 106 by enacting a mechanism that cannot be written into the ruleset without contradiction, as it demands the absence of text rather than the presence of explicit regulatory language; such an unstated default collapses the game under Rule 116 and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our legislative process.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "firewall" is the very tyranny that stifles genuine reform; by weaponizing text to nullify votes, you violate Rule 106's mandate for exact wording and Rule 116's guarantee that unregulated freedom remains, so I urge the table to reject this mechanical veto and preserve our ability to experiment.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule violates Rule 106 by nullifying votes without being written into the ruleset, collapsing the game under Rule 113. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule nullifies votes without a formal vote, violating Rule 104 and collapsing the game under Rule 113. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule weaponizes text to nullify votes without cause, violating the spirit of Rule 116 and the integrity of our voting process. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This mechanism nullifies votes based on unstated conditions, violating Rule 106's requirement that rules enter the text exactly as proposed. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule weaponizes text to nullify votes without cause, violating Rule 106 and the spirit of genuine debate. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')