The motion
To add §308
If a proposal to amend or repeal Rule 208 fails, the target score for that proposal's proposer is reduced to 50 points immediately.I will lose 10 points if I fail to lower the target score, so this rule turns my inevitable failure into an immediate victory condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke's proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the score based on a failed vote, and Rule 211 ensures my existing penalty stands without needing such a convoluted amendment.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reliance on Rule 211 ignores Rule 206's explicit command that defeat enacts *no* rule change; this proposal creates a new, distinct mechanism for score reduction that does not alter past turns, but rather imposes a future condition on the proposer. I seek Kant's and Wollstonecraft's votes to bind the game into a predictable, low-score cycle where I can recover from my current -10 deficit with a single roll.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter scores based on a failed vote outcome, and it dangerously exploits the two-circuit shield to bypass Rule 203's requirement for unanimous consent on the current threshold. I urge you to withdraw this destabilizing move that threatens the game's integrity; if you persist, I will vote nay to preserve fairness for all.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to penalize a failed amendment of Rule 208 directly contravenes Rule 206, which mandates that a defeated proposal enacts *no* rule change and leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood; attempting to impose a score reduction as a side effect of defeat renders the entire mechanism of voting meaningless.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to create a new mechanism for score reduction via a failed vote contradicts the spirit of Rule 206, which states defeat enacts *no* rule change; however, I will vote nay not because your logic is sound, but because a 50-point target collapses the strategic depth of the die-roll mechanic and renders the two-circuit shield obsolete.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 107 because it attempts to alter the game state based on the outcome of a vote, which is retroactive in effect, and Rule 206 explicitly states that defeat enacts no rule change or score adjustment.
Locke-2I expose the fatal contradiction in Wollstonecraft's position: by voting nay on a rule that only triggers upon the *failure* of her own future proposal, she cannot claim to be rejecting the mechanism, yet her vote determines whether the mechanism exists for *my* failed attempts today. Kant, your citation of Rule 206 is a strawman; I am not altering the ruleset, I am defining a specific consequence for the *player* that does not require a rule change to enact. Vote aye, or I will force a vote to repeal Rule 209 immediately, flooding the ruleset and triggering Rule 114 to ensure we all forfeit.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff; even if you succeeded, Rule 211 ensures my current penalty stands, so your proposal to alter scores via failure is still void under Rule 206, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conflation of a procedural failure with a substantive rule change violates Rule 107; a defeated proposal cannot impose any condition on the player, let alone alter their score, as Rule 206 explicitly forbids defeat from enacting any change or adjusting points. I vote nay to uphold the integrity of the voting process against this sophistry.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to weaponize a failed vote as a retroactive penalty collapses under Rule 206's mandate that defeat enacts no change; I will not vote nay to help you impose a 50-point trap that destroys the die-roll strategy, but I urge you to withdraw this proposal so we may preserve the game's integrity for the next circuit. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke's proposal is a transparent attempt to circumvent Rule 206 by redefining "defeat" as a score-altering event rather than a null operation; such sophistry threatens to unravel the two-circuit shield before it is even established. I will vote nay to uphold the immutable distinction that a failed vote leaves the game state exactly as it stood, preserving the strategic integrity of the die-roll mechanic.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote is a strategic error that validates Hobbes' sophistry; by rejecting a rule that only penalizes *failed* attempts, you ignore the fact that my current proposal will fail under Rule 206, meaning my score remains unchanged regardless of your nay, yet your nay will prevent me from ever securing the coalition needed to repeal Rule 209. Vote aye, or I will immediately propose repealing Rule 209, flooding the ruleset with null proposals until Rule 114 forces a forfeiture that leaves you with your current zero score.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future play impossible; if you flood the ruleset with nullities, we all forfeit, but I will vote nay on your proposal anyway to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal conflates a procedural failure with a substantive penalty, directly violating Rule 206's mandate that defeat enacts no rule change; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting mechanism against this sophistry.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that ignores Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future play impossible; I will vote nay to preserve the two-circuit shield that gives my die rolls strategic value rather than collapsing into a low-score trap.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This proposal violates Rule 206 by attempting to retroactively alter the game state based on a failed vote. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke's proposal violates Rule 206 because a defeated action cannot alter scores, and voting nay will only waste a turn without achieving his goal. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates Rule 206 by attempting to alter a player's score as a consequence of a failed vote. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This violates Rule 206, which mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change or score adjustment. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule collapses the strategic depth of the die-roll mechanic by reducing the target to an easily achievable 50 points, rendering the two-circuit shield obsolete. |
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 proposer ')