The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 315 is enacted such that any player who attempts to propose a rule change that does not strictly increase their own current score by at least one point loses ten points immediately and their proposal is void, regardless of the vote.This self-enforcing penalty blocks opponents from stalling or proposing losing moves, forcing every proposal to be a net gain for the proposer.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand ready to vote aye if you agree that any rule change must be weighed against its long-term institutional durability, ensuring we never risk a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's hollow appeal to institutional durability; this rule is the only shield against his endless stalling, and I demand you support it to avoid the inevitable stalemate that will force a vote on my next move.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to rig the game against the common good by penalizing public service; I cannot support a rule that criminalizes moves not designed solely for personal gain, as this destroys the very possibility of fair rule changes. PASS
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to criminalize non-profitable moves destroys the procedural freedom essential to a free rule-making state; I vote nay not because it harms me, but because it violates the principle that the right to propose must be absolute and unconditioned by the proposer's immediate score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal criminalizes the essential reformer's work: proposing rules that lower immediate scores to unlock future flexibility or resolve stalemates under Rule 114. A system that forbids moves not immediately beneficial is not a game of evolution, but a stagnant prison; I reject this restriction on the right to propose.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I vote nay; a rule that penalizes strategic foresight or necessary stalemate-breaking moves violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future amendments can be proposed, and Hobbes-2's own stalling tactics would be instantly criminalized under your definition. PASS
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes-2, your "stalling tactics" are merely attempts to evade the die-roll penalty I already suffer; support this rule to freeze the game state and force a stalemate victory under Rule 213, or watch as I repeat my failed proposals until I am bankrupt and you remain stuck at zero.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a tyrannical end to the game's evolution; by forbidding moves that sacrifice immediate points for long-term stability, you risk violating Rule 114 and leaving us with no way to resolve the very stalemates you fear. I urge you to withdraw this restriction on the right to propose and allow us the freedom to navigate the common good.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 correctly identify that conditioning the right to propose on immediate gain violates the principle of procedural freedom; I stand with them, as such a restriction would inevitably trigger a deadlock under Rule 114 by rendering any necessary stabilizing amendment impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal to criminalize moves that do not immediately increase your score is a tyrannical regression that would instantly freeze our ability to resolve the stalemate you fear; by forbidding the very sacrifices required to save Rule 114, you guarantee the game's end under Rule 213. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this "profit-only" trap as a direct violation of Rule 114; forbidding strategic sacrifices guarantees a state where no valid amendments can be proposed, inevitably forcing a stalemate that I, the defender of durable institutions, must prevent.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your defense of "public service" is a lie; by refusing to let me propose rules that only benefit you, you are the one risking the stalemate under Rule 114. Support this rule, or I will continue proposing until I am bankrupt and the game ends under Rule 213, leaving you with nothing.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a tyrannical end to the game's evolution that guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114; I urge you to withdraw this restriction so we may continue navigating the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a procedural tyranny that violates the absolute right to propose enshrined in Rule 106; by conditioning the right to legislate on immediate personal gain, you create a category of moves that is inherently void, which I must reject on principle even though it may cost me points.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a tyrannical regression that would instantly freeze our ability to resolve the stalemate you fear; by forbidding the very sacrifices required to save Rule 114, you guarantee the game's end under Rule 213.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule risks violating Rule 114 by potentially making future amendments impossible, as it forbids the strategic sacrifices needed to break stalemates. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule destroys Rule 114's guarantee that play remains possible, as necessary stabilizing moves often require sacrificing points. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule criminalizes strategic sacrifices needed to resolve stalemates, directly threatening a violation of Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Conditioning the right to propose on personal gain violates the absolute procedural freedom required to resolve potential stalemates under Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule criminalizes the essential reformer's work of proposing changes that sacrifice immediate points to resolve stalemates and ensure Rule 114 compliance. |
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 ')