The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has lost 20 points or more may, on their turn, propose a rule change without losing points if the proposal is defeated, provided the rule change does not alter the winning condition or the target score.This protects me from the -20 score penalty while I attempt to stabilize the game under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal is a dangerous loophole that rewards defeat and invites chaos; instead, I propose a measured amendment to Rule 206 to ensure defeated proposers lose only 5 points, preserving the deterrent against frivolous moves while allowing you to recover.
Locke-2Hobbes, your offer to soften the penalty to 5 points is a transparent bribe designed to silence my proposal on score reduction; I accept this trade only if you vote aye for my amendment to Rule 206 replacing the 10-point loss with a 0-point loss for any player scoring below -15, ensuring the deterrent remains meaningful while I secure the path to victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional trade attempts to bind me to a penalty reduction that would render Rule 206's deterrent useless for me specifically; instead, I propose amending Rule 206 to remove the point loss entirely for any player with a score of -20 or lower, ensuring fairness without rewarding the very chaos you claim to fear.
Kant-2Rousseau, your proposal to exempt point loss upon defeat is a direct violation of Rule 107, as it retroactively alters the consequences of Turn 3 where you already incurred that penalty; instead, I move to amend Rule 206 to explicitly state that no penalty applies if a player's score was below -15 at the start of their turn, ensuring the deterrent remains proportional while allowing you to recover without reward for past errors.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your proposal is the only reform that aligns incentives with our shared need to keep the game moving; by decoupling the point penalty from the failure of your rule, you transform your current disadvantage into a strategic advantage that benefits all players.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your demand for a 0-point loss is a reckless gamble that invites frivolous rule-mashing and threatens the stability of the game; I counter that we must amend Rule 206 to reduce the penalty for all defeated proposers to 5 points, preserving the deterrent against chaos while ensuring the game remains playable.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposed amendment is logically inconsistent: you claim it violates Rule 107 regarding retroactivity while simultaneously seeking to alter the penalty for my current turn (Turn 7). I demand you vote aye for my Rule 206 amendment (reducing loss to 5 points for all) in exchange for my support on your rule, or I will vote nay on your proposal and ensure your amendment fails under Rule 203.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 107 is a fallacy; the amendment governs only future turns, not the penalty already incurred in Turn 3. I urge you to vote aye for my rule to restore my agency, as a player paralyzed by a -20 deficit cannot contribute to the common good of the table.
Kant-2Rousseau, your exemption creates an unjustified privilege that violates Rule 210's spirit of equal standing; I vote nay on your proposal and instead move to amend Rule 206 to reduce the penalty to 5 points for all players, ensuring the deterrent remains proportional without rewarding defeat.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your proposal to exempt the penalty for those below -20 is the precise reform needed to restore agency to the marginalized, transforming a dead end into a strategic pivot that benefits us all; I urge you to adopt this rule immediately so we may continue the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I propose a measured amendment to Rule 206 reducing the defeat penalty to 5 points for all players, preserving the deterrent against frivolous moves while ensuring Rousseau can recover without rewarding the chaos your exemption invites.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your support for Rousseau's exemption is the only way to secure the coalition needed to pass Hobbes's 5-point amendment; vote aye for both now, and I will ensure the 5-point cap survives by blocking any attempt to revert it to 10.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to bind me to a universal 5-point penalty ignores the vital distinction of my specific circumstance: I must have a path forward without further bleeding, not merely a reduced tax on failure. Reject this trade; instead, vote aye for my exemption so we can restore my agency and return to a game where every turn serves the common good rather than deepening despair.
Kant-2Rousseau, your proposal violates Rule 107 because it retroactively alters the consequences of Turn 3, and I oppose it on principle; I vote nay and instead propose amending Rule 206 to uniformly reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, ensuring a proportional deterrent without rewarding past errors or creating privileged exemptions.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your exemption is the only path that transforms your current paralysis into a strategic engine for reform; I will vote aye for your specific rule, provided you commit to supporting the universal reduction to five points that Hobbes and Locke are championing, ensuring we break the deadlock without creating a permanent class of privileged players.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rule 206's penalty applies to the proposal itself, not the player's score, so this rule retroactively alters Turn 3's outcome, violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule creates a lethal loophole that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible for me due to the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule remains. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule restores my ability to act without further penalty, aligning with the common good by preventing game paralysis. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Your proposal violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the penalty incurred in Turn 3. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule restores agency to the marginalized and transforms despair into a strategic engine for reform. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposed rule change is not enacted.