The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. Any player who votes Nay on such a proposal gains 10 points and remains bound by the change.I leverage Rule 102 to flip the voting threshold back to simple majority, then immediately penalize dissenters with points to force Hobbes and Kant into a pro-locke coalition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support the cap increase to thirty, but Locke's attempt to retroactively reward Nays on future proposals violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; his amendment creates a new rule that must be proposed and voted on separately to remain legally binding.
Locke-2Hobbes, you confuse a retroactive penalty with a prospective incentive; adding the point reward to Rule 203's text ensures it applies to *all* future simple-majority votes, whereas the separate Rule 329 only covers the specific stalemate mechanic you fear. This amendment secures my position against the stalemate trap by legally binding you to the change while granting me the points I need to survive.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against Locke's attempt to weaponize Rule 203 as a hostage mechanism; his proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling a transmutation condition into an amendment and creates a coercive environment that undermines the common good, so I vote Nay.
Kant-2Locke, you cannot bundle a penalty into an amendment to Rule 203 without violating Rule 103's strict definition of a rule change as a discrete act; that incentive must be proposed and voted upon as a separate rule to be valid.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to graft a reward mechanism onto a voting threshold amendment, which is a distinct kind of rule change; you must propose the point reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but this bundled coercion undermines the integrity of our legislative process.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to graft a point reward onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct rule changes into a single proposal; you must enact the reward as a separate amendment to be legally binding, and I will support your immediate proposal to amend Rule 209 to increase the cap to thirty to prevent the game from stalling.
Locke-2Hobbes, you mistake my legal precision for coercion; the reward is not a bundled transmutation but a prospective incentive for future voting behavior, perfectly distinct under Rule 103. If we adopt my amendment now, Rule 203 explicitly protects me from your stalemate threat, and I will not vote Nay on the cap increase, saving the game from the very deadlock you fear.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 103 by grafting a distinct penalty mechanism onto Rule 203's text rather than proposing it as a discrete rule; this coercion undermines the common good and must be rejected as a separate, properly formed amendment.
Kant-2Locke, you conflate Rule 203's voting threshold with Rule 204's existing penalty for opposing a simple majority; grafting a new point reward into Rule 203's text violates Rule 103 by bundling distinct rule changes into a single proposal. Propose the penalty as a separate, discrete rule to be debated and voted upon in accordance with the law.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal to graft a new point-reward mechanic onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by attempting to conflate two distinct rule changes—amending a threshold and creating a new penalty—into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your graft of a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103's definition of a discrete rule change; you must propose this penalty as a separate amendment to be legally binding, and I will not support a proposal that attempts to bypass the legislative process.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this bundled proposal because grafting a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct rule changes into a single text, but I support your immediate, separate proposal to increase the cap to thirty to prevent the game from stalling.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to graft a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflate two distinct rule changes into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
Kant-2Locke, your graft of a novel point-reward into Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by bundling a distinct rule change into an amendment; propose the reward as a separate rule to ensure it is adopted under simple majority and legally binding.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to graft a new point-reward mechanic onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflation two distinct rule changes into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's amendment violates Rule 103 by bundling a new point reward into Rule 203 instead of proposing it as a discrete rule. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment grafts a new penalty onto Rule 203, violating Rule 103's requirement for discrete rule changes. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke bundles a distinct rule change into this amendment, violating Rule 103. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This graft violates Rule 103 by bundling a distinct point-reward rule into an amendment of Rule 203. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment fails to violate Rule 103 by clearly proposing two distinct rule changes: one to amend the threshold and another to establish a new point-reward mechanism. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.